From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Livingston v. Ferrante

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jun 27, 2017
5:16-CV-1371 (BKS/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 27, 2017)

Opinion

5:16-CV-1371 (BKS/DEP)

06-27-2017

RICHARD H. LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff, v. MIKE FERRANTE, et al., Defendants.

Appearances: Richard H. Livingston 14-B-3634 Clinton Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2002 Dannemora, NY 12929 Plaintiff, pro se


Appearances:

Richard H. Livingston
14-B-3634
Clinton Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2002
Dannemora, NY 12929
Plaintiff, pro se Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge :

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff Richard Livingston commenced this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against, inter alia, Onondaga County Assistant District Attorney Mike Ferrante. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 14), following a Report, Recommendation and Order by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles recommending that the Complaint be dismissed with leave to replead. Dkt. No. 9. The Amended Complaint was thereafter referred to Magistrate Judge Peebles for review. Dkt. No. 19. Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a Report and Recommendation on May 30, 2017 recommending that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed in its entirety without leave to replead. Dkt. No. 20. Magistrate Judge Peebles advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report, and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Dkt. No. 20, pp. 14-15. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

As no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error and found none, it is adopted in its entirety.

For these reasons, it is

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 20) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 14) is DISMISSED, in its entirety, without leave to replead; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2017

/s/ _________

Brenda K. Sannes

U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Livingston v. Ferrante

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jun 27, 2017
5:16-CV-1371 (BKS/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 27, 2017)
Case details for

Livingston v. Ferrante

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD H. LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff, v. MIKE FERRANTE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Jun 27, 2017

Citations

5:16-CV-1371 (BKS/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 27, 2017)