From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Raven v. DaVita Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mar 29, 2018
5:18-CV-0204 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2018)

Opinion

5:18-CV-0204 (LEK/DEP)

03-29-2018

GLORIA RAVEN, Plaintiff, v. DAVITA INC., et al., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on March 9, 2018, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 5 ("Report-Recommendation").

Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument."). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." § 636(b). Otherwise, a court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id.

No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. Thus, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action she must file an amended complaint within thirty days of the filing date of this Order; and it is further

Any amended complaint, which shall supersede and replace the original complaint in its entirety, must allege claims of misconduct or wrongdoing against each named defendant that Plaintiff has a legal right to pursue, and over which jurisdiction may properly be exercised. Any amended complaint filed by Plaintiff must also comply with the pleading requirements of Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. --------

ORDERED, that in the event Plaintiff fails to file a signed amended complaint within thirty days of the filing date of this Order, the Clerk shall enter judgment without further order of this Court dismissing this action without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and it is further

ORDERED, that all pleadings, motions, and other documents relating to this action must bear the case number assigned to this action and be filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, 7th Floor, Federal Building, 100 S. Clinton St., Syracuse, New York 13261-7367. Plaintiff must comply with any requests by the Clerk's Office for any documents that are necessary to maintain this action. All parties must comply with Local Rule 7.1 of the Northern District of New York in filing motions; motions will be decided on submitted papers, without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered by this Court. Plaintiff is also required to promptly notify the Clerk's Office and all parties or their counsel, in writing, of any change in his address; his failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 29, 2018

Albany, New York

/s/_________

Lawrence E. Kahn

U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Raven v. DaVita Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mar 29, 2018
5:18-CV-0204 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2018)
Case details for

Raven v. DaVita Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GLORIA RAVEN, Plaintiff, v. DAVITA INC., et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Mar 29, 2018

Citations

5:18-CV-0204 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2018)