From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woolsey v. Mitzel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jul 11, 2017
1:17-CV-33 (TJM/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 11, 2017)

Opinion

1:17-CV-33 (TJM/DEP)

07-11-2017

JEANETTE WOOLSEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DESIREE ANN MITZEL, et al., Defendants.


Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge

DECISION & ORDER

This pro se civil action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other state and federal statues, alleges a variety of violations of Plaintiffs' rights as parents of a child removed from their custody. The matter was referred to the Hon. David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).

The Report-Recommendation, dated June 13, 2017, recommends that Plaintiffs' Second Amendment Complaint be dismissed without leave to re-plead and without prejudice to Plaintiffs refiling the action in a different forum, if appropriate. See dkt. # 37.

Plaintiffs filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. See dkt. # 39. 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 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 Plaintiffs' objections, the Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs' objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. # 39, are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 37, is hereby ADOPTED, and:

Plaintiffs' Second Amendment Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without leave to re-plead but without prejudice to Plaintiffs re-filing the action in a different forum, if appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:July 11, 2017

/s/_________

Thomas J. McAvoy

Senior, U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Woolsey v. Mitzel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jul 11, 2017
1:17-CV-33 (TJM/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 11, 2017)
Case details for

Woolsey v. Mitzel

Case Details

Full title:JEANETTE WOOLSEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DESIREE ANN MITZEL, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Jul 11, 2017

Citations

1:17-CV-33 (TJM/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 11, 2017)

Citing Cases

Marshall v. Caudill

Plaintiff has asserted no plausible basis for jurisdiction since the Court entered its March 15 order. The…