From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maxwell v. Miller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jun 21, 2018
9:16-CV-0275 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 21, 2018)

Opinion

9:16-CV-0275 (LEK/DEP)

06-21-2018

JAMES MAXWELL, Plaintiff, v. MR. MILLER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court following a report-recommendation filed on May 21, 2018, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 34 ("Report-Recommendation").

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument."). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." § 636(b). Otherwise, a court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id.

III. DISCUSSION

No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. Thus, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 32) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 30) is GRANTED and the case is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 21, 2018

Albany, New York

/s/_________

Lawrence E. Kahn

U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Maxwell v. Miller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jun 21, 2018
9:16-CV-0275 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 21, 2018)
Case details for

Maxwell v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:JAMES MAXWELL, Plaintiff, v. MR. MILLER, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Jun 21, 2018

Citations

9:16-CV-0275 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 21, 2018)

Citing Cases

Vallen v. Newson

The United States Supreme Court recently held that a pretrial detainee must demonstrate that a defendant's…