From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Monaco

United States District Court, Western District of New York
Jan 29, 2024
19-CV-904 (JLS) (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2024)

Opinion

19-CV-904 (JLS)

01-29-2024

CHANIKKA DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. MR. MONACO, MS. HOOKS, PATRICIA CUDNEY, SHERIFFS OFFICER A INVESTIGATOR, STACEY HENRY, SHERIFFS OFFICER B INVESTIGATOR, AMANDA IRONS, JASON BERENT, Defendants.


DECISION AND ORDER

JOHN L. SINATRA, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Chanikka Davis commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 on July 8, 2019. See generally Dkt. 1. This Court granted Davis leave to file an amended complaint, which she filed on February 11, 2021. Dkt. 9. Davis alleged several violations of her constitutional rights. Id. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Davis's amended complaint. Dkt. 27.

On October 24, 2023, Judge Schroeder issued a Report, Recommendation, and Order (“R&R”) recommending this Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss. Dkt. 47. Davis filed a “motion for hearing'' on October 18, 2023, Dkt. 48, which the Court construed as Davis's objections to Judge Schroeder's R&R. The Court set a briefing schedule on Davis's objections. Dkt. 49. Neither party made further submissions.

This Court referred the case to United States magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. sections 646(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 26.

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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. section 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 Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Schroeder's recommendation. For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 27) is GRANTED and the amended complaint is dismissed.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Davis v. Monaco

United States District Court, Western District of New York
Jan 29, 2024
19-CV-904 (JLS) (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2024)
Case details for

Davis v. Monaco

Case Details

Full title:CHANIKKA DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. MR. MONACO, MS. HOOKS, PATRICIA CUDNEY…

Court:United States District Court, Western District of New York

Date published: Jan 29, 2024

Citations

19-CV-904 (JLS) (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2024)