From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodgers v. Drew

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 24, 2016
9:14-cv-0406 (LEK/DJS) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2016)

Opinion

9:14-cv-0406 (LEK/DJS)

02-24-2016

DANYL RODGERS, Plaintiff, v. D.B. DREW, et at., Defendants.


ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January 28, 2016, by the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 32 ("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 must review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, 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. 32) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion (Dkt. No. 29) to dismiss is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant Pelkey is directed to respond to the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 14-2) in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 24, 2016

Albany, New York

/s/_________

Lawrence E. Kahn

U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Rodgers v. Drew

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 24, 2016
9:14-cv-0406 (LEK/DJS) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2016)
Case details for

Rodgers v. Drew

Case Details

Full title:DANYL RODGERS, Plaintiff, v. D.B. DREW, et at., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Feb 24, 2016

Citations

9:14-cv-0406 (LEK/DJS) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2016)

Citing Cases

People ex rel. Hardacre v. Davidson

( Warden v. Bayfield, 87 Wis. 181, [58 N.W. 248].) This brings the case at bar strictly within the decision…

Maddox v. York

Honey v. Graham, 39 Tex. 1; Page v. Hardin, 8 B. Mon., 648; State v. Pritchard, 36 N.J.L. 117; Cronin v.…