Opinion
3:24-cv-1265 (DNH/TWD)
12-18-2024
CHARLES M. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE BRETT S. NOONAN, Defendant.
CHARLES M. THOMAS Plaintiff, pro se 650 Old Front St.
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:
CHARLES M. THOMAS
Plaintiff, pro se 650 Old Front St.
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
THERESE WILEY DANCKS, United States Magistrate Judge
The Clerk has sent to the Court for review a complaint filed pro se plaintiff Charles M. Thomas (“Plaintiff”), together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. By text order dated October 17, 2024, this case was deemed related to the action filed in 3:24-CV-1235 (hereinafter, “Thomas I”). Dkt. No. 4.
Citations to Plaintiff's submissions will refer to the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court's electronic filing system.
Upon further review, the complaint in the instant action is nearly identical to the complaint filed in Thomas I, 3:24-CV-1235. Specifically, pages one through five of the instant complaint are identical to pages one through five of the complaint in Thomas I. Additionally, the sixth and final page of the instant complaint is identical to the seventh and final page of the complaint in Thomas I. In other words, the complaint in this case is the same as the complaint in Thomas I, but for a missing page.
In Thomas I, the undersigned recommends dismissal of the complaint against the sole Defendant, Broome County Family Court Judge Brett S. Noonan, as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and further notes the Defendant was entitled to judicial and Eleventh Amendment immunity on Plaintiff's claims against him, which arise out of Judge Noonan's entry of a default judgment against Plaintiff in the Defendant's capacity as a New York State Judge. Because the instant complaint is based on the same facts and seeks the same relief against Judge Noonan, dismissal is warranted for the same reasons stated in Thomas I.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be DISMISSED, and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide to Plaintiff a copy of this Report-Recommendation and Order, along with copies of the unpublished decisions cited herein in accordance with the Second Circuit decision in Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW . Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.
If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Report-Recommendation and Order by mail, three additional days will be added to the fourteen-day period, meaning that you have seventeen days from the date the Report-Recommendation and Order was mailed to you to serve and file objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1)(C).
IT IS SO ORDERED.