Opinion
9:17-CV-0468 (LEK/DEP)
05-30-2018
MICHAEL J. WELLS, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW HANLON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 7, 2018, 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. 34 ("Report-Recommendation").
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
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. Thus, 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. 34) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's state-law assault and battery claim with respect to defendants Edwards, Locastro, Turo, and Vosberg; the Motion is otherwise DENIED; 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: May 30, 2018
Albany, New York
/s/_________
Lawrence E. Kahn
U.S. District Judge