Opinion
3:15-cv-0807 (LEK/DEP)
10-06-2015
PATRICK LLOYD WARNER, Plaintiff, v. HERBERT MANDELL, et al., Defendants
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on September 1, 2015, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 5 ("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. 5) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action he must file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED, that upon the filing of an amended complaint as directed above, the Clerk shall return the file to the Court for further review; and it is further
ORDERED, that in the event Plaintiff fails to file a signed amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order, the Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this action due to Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and to comply with the terms of this Order, without further order of the Court; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 06, 2015
Albany, New York
/s/_________
Lawrence E. Kahn
U.S. District Judge