Opinion
9:17-CV-1014 (LEK/ATB)
04-27-2018
ERIC J. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. P. SCHMIDT, Defendant.
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on March 26, 2018, by the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 17 ("Report-Recommendation"). Pro se plaintiff Eric J. Taylor timely filed objections. Dkt. No. 21 ("Objections").
II. LEGAL STANDARD
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.
III. DISCUSSION
Although Plaintiff submitted a filing in response to the Report-Recommendation, he merely restated facts already presented in his complaint. Objs. at 1. The Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Defendant's motion to Dismiss (Dkt 14) is GRANTED and the Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 27, 2018
Albany, New York
/s/_________
Lawrence E. Kahn
U.S. District Judge