Opinion
22-CV-842 (JLS)(JJM)
03-22-2023
DEANNA MARLENE BELLAVIA. a/k/a DEANNA KING, Plaintiff, v. ORLEANS COUNTY, ORLEANS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ORLEANS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, COREY BLACK, DEPUTY JOHN DOE, and DAVID BELLAVIA, Defendants.
AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Deanna Marlene Bellavia, a/k/a Deanna King, commenced this action on November 4, 2022, alleging, inter alia, that Defendant David Bellavia violated her civil rights by conspiring with others to arrange for her false arrest and prosecution without probable cause. Dkt. 1. Defendant Bellavia moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Dkt. 10. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and Defendant replied. Dkts. 19, 22. This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 12. Plaintiff also moved to amend the complaint. Dkt. 26.
On January 25, 2023, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant the motion to dismiss and deny the motion to amend. Dkt. 29. Plaintiff objected-arguing that her complaint adequately stated facts showing false arrest or, in the alternative, the court should have granted her leave to amend. Dkt. 30, at 2. Defendant responded, and Plaintiff replied. Dkts. 33, 34, 35.
Plaintiff submitted an amended reply memorandum of law on March 3, 2023. Dkt. 35.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections, the response, the amended reply, and the parties' initial submissions to Judge McCarthy. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge McCarthy's recommendations.
Moreover, the alleged conspiracy (in both versions of the complaint) lacks the requisite plausibility to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, namely, in its reliance on factually-bare speculation about a supposed improper agreement based solely on a pre-existing relationship between Defendant Black and David Bellavia. See Dkt. 27-1, at 7-8 ¶¶ 29-30, 32-33; 10 ¶ 47; 11 ¶ 53; 15 ¶ 74; Dkt. 27-3, at 11 ¶ 48; 12 ¶ 58; 13 ¶¶ 61, 63; 14-15 ¶¶ 69, 73-77; 19 ¶ 98.
The Court also notes with interest the apparent disconnect between the transcript before Judge McCarthy (Dkt. 35-1, at 5-8) and Plaintiff's objection (Dkt. 30, at 10, Ex. A), with respect to whether Plaintiffs counsel had access to the criminal charging document prior to filing this suit. See Dkt. 35, at 2.
For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court GRANTS Defendant Bellavia's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 10), and DENIES Plaintiffs motion to amend (Dkt. 26). The case is referred back to Judge McCarthy for further proceedings consistent with the referral order of December 26, 2022 (Dkt. 12).
SO ORDERED.