Summary
observing that granting “experienced pro se litigants” the same solicitude due an inexperienced one “would tilt the scales of justice unfairly in favor of the pro se litigant and against his opponents”
Summary of this case from Tolliver v. JordanOpinion
9:04-CV-0910, (LEK/GHL).
September 4, 2007
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August 6, 2007, by the Honorable George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 89). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by the Jose J. Shomo, which were filed on August 10, 2007. Objections (Dkt. No. 90).
It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 89) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 72, 73) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY, WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.