Opinion
No. 08-cv-455 (GLS-DRH).
September 22, 2008
KAMAL KARNA ROY, Pro Se, Saranac Lake, New York.
DECISION AND ORDER
The above-captioned matter comes to this court following a Report and Recommendation ("R R") by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer, filed July 11, 2008. (Dkt. No. 6.) The R R recommended that pro se defendant Kamal Karna Roy's ("Roy") Amended Complaint be dismissed for failure to comply with the court's order of May 20, 2008 (Dkt. No. 4), directing Roy to file his Amended Complaint in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Pending is Roy's response to the R R, which the Court has construed, liberally, as an objection (the "Objection") to the R R. (Dkt. No. 7).
The Clerk is directed to append the R R to this decision, and familiarity therewith is presumed.
As this court has previously observed, before entering final judgment, the court reviews an R R in cases it has referred to a Magistrate Judge. See Anderson v. Banks, No. 06-cv-0625, 2008 WL 3285917, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2008). When a party objects to specific elements of the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations, the court conducts a de novo review of those findings and recommendations. See Id. However, in cases, as this one, where a party has filed no objection, or only a vague or general objection, the court reviews the findings and recommendations for clear error. See Id.
Under clear error review, the court finds Judge Homer did not err in determining Roy failed to correct the defects in his pleadings and that it is impossible to discern what claims, if any, Roy asserts in his pleadings. Judge Homer correctly determined that Roy failed to comply with the court's prior directive to file a complaint that fully complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, thus, his case should be dismissed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The Second Circuit has explained:
[t]he adequacy of the proposed amended complaint is to be judged by the same standards as those governing the adequacy of a filed pleading. Rule 8(a) requires a 'short and plain statement of the claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief,' Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and is designed to permit the defendant to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery.See Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority, 941 F.2d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1991); see also Kittay v. Kornstein, 230 F.3d 531, 541 (2d Cir. 2000). Finding no error in Judge Homer's determination that Roy's case should be dismissed for failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure and a previous court's order, the court approves and adopts the R R in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Roy's objections are overruled, Magistrate Judge Homer's July 11, 2008 Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety and Roy's complaint is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment and provide copies of this Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
On April 23, 2008, plaintiff Kamal Karna Roy ("Roy") filed a complaint against the United States of America. Docket No. 1. The complaint was made on a preprinted form in illegible handwriting with notations in no particular order in the margins and between lines. Id. The complaint was illegible and unintelligible. On May 20, 2008, the Court determined that the complaint failed to satisfy the basic pleading requirements and directed that Roy filed an amended complaint within thirty days that fully complied with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 4. Roy has since mailed to the Clerk's Office on separate occasions voluminous documents consisting of similarly illegible and unintelligible papers. See, e.g., Docket No. 5.Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss an action, on motion or its own initiative, for the "failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or any order of court[.]" Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (emphasis added). Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also authorizes dismissal of an action due to a party's failure to comply with discovery and court orders. See also N.D.N.Y.L.R. 1.1(d) 7.1(d). Here, despite several opportunities to correct the defects in his pleadings, Roy has failed to do so and it remains impossible to discern from Roy's pleadings the precise — or even approximate — claims he seeks to assert. Roy has thus failed to comply with this Court's order of May 20, 2008 directing him to file a complaint which complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Porcedure.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for failure to comply with the Court's order of May 20, 2008 (Docket No. 4); and it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that any future submissions by Roy be returned to him without filing; and it is hereby
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the Roy by regular mail.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may lodge written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN TEN DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993); Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6(a), 6(e).