Opinion
1:16-cv-0475 (LEK/CFH)
06-30-2016
DAVID ALLEN MOORE, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL S. STRATTEN VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on June 3, 2016, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 11 ("Report-Recommendation").
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-0857, 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); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. The Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Applications (Dkt. Nos. 7, 10) to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the following claims are DISMISSED with prejudice: (1) Plaintiff's Bivens claims against Defendant Hospital; (2) Plaintiff's Bivens claims against the unnamed guard/officer in his official capacity; and (3) Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's speedy trial claims be DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend to permit Plaintiff the opportunity to (a) explain how the unnamed hospital guard was involved in the alleged speedy trial violations and/or (b) name any other defendants who may have been involved and provide sufficient detail of such involvement; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's remaining claims survive initial review and require a response; 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 30, 2016
Albany, NY
/s/_________
Lawrence E. Kahn
U.S. District Judge