From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stegemann v. Rensselaer Cnty. Sheriff's Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 19, 2015
1:15-CV-21 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2015)

Opinion

1:15-CV-21

02-19-2015

JOSHUA G. STEGEMANN, Plaintiff, v. RENSSELAER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.


DECISION & ORDER

This pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and other federal and state statutes, alleges violations of Plaintiff's rights in a search and seizure of his property by agents during a drug raid. The matter was referred to Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).

In the Report-Recommendation, dated February 3, 2015, Magistrate Judge Hummel recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See dkt. # 5.

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When objections to a magistrate judge's Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which the objection is made." See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.

Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the Plaintiff's objections, this Court has determined to accept the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.

It is therefore ordered that:

(1) Plaintiff's Objections, dkt. # 6 to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel, dkt. # 5, are hereby OVERRULED;

(2) The Report-Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED;

(3) The Plaintiff's Complaint, dkt. # 1, is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 19, 2015

/s/_________

Thomas J. McAvoy

Senior, U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Stegemann v. Rensselaer Cnty. Sheriff's Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 19, 2015
1:15-CV-21 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2015)
Case details for

Stegemann v. Rensselaer Cnty. Sheriff's Office

Case Details

Full title:JOSHUA G. STEGEMANN, Plaintiff, v. RENSSELAER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Feb 19, 2015

Citations

1:15-CV-21 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2015)

Citing Cases

Stegemann v. Rensselaer Cnty. Sheriff's Office

With respect to Stegemann's 14th Amendment claims concerning the unlawful destruction and seizure of…

Stegemann v. Rensselaer Cnty. Sheriff's Office

With respect to Stegemann's 14th Amendment claims concerning the unlawful destruction and seizure of…