Opinion
1:17-CV-0365 (LEK/CFH)
06-19-2017
JAMES PATRICK REEDOM Plaintiff, v. SCHENECTADY COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND PENSION PLAN, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 15, 2017, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 16 ("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), overruled on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. (SUNY) 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." (quoting Howell v. Port Chester Police Station, No. 09-CV-1651, 2010 WL 930981, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010))). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. The Court has therefore reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages are DISMISSED without leave to amend; and it is further
ORDERED, that if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must submit an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this Order, or else the Clerk of the Court shall close this action without further order of the Court; 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: June 19, 2017
Albany, New York
/s/_________
Lawrence E. Kahn
U.S. District Judge