From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WILLIAMS v. ZUK

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Apr 1, 2009
9:07-CV-789 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2009)

Opinion

9:07-CV-789.

April 1, 2009

CHARLES R. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, Pro Se, Jamesville, New York.

KAREN ANN BLESKOSKI, ESQ., Deputy County Attorney, HON. GORDON J. CUFF, ESQ., Onondaga County Attorney, Syracuse, New York.


DECISION and ORDER


Plaintiff, Charles Williams, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following an order remanding plaintiffs suit for reconsideration in view of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1) and the decision in Mitchell v. Smith, No. 06-CV-373, 2008 WL 1774160 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 14, 2008), the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a second Report-Recommendation and Order dated January 22, 2009. Pursuant to the Report-Recommendation and Order, Magistrate Judge Peebles denied recusal of himself and recommended that defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and that plaintiffs complaint be dismissed with leave to replead. The plaintiff has filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation and Order.

Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, the Report-Recommendation and Order is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that

(1) The defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and

(2) The plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to replead.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

WILLIAMS v. ZUK

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Apr 1, 2009
9:07-CV-789 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2009)
Case details for

WILLIAMS v. ZUK

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ZUK, Deputy, Onondaga County Sheriff's…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Apr 1, 2009

Citations

9:07-CV-789 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2009)

Citing Cases

Grabis v. Navient Sols. (In re Grabis)

Devine v. United States, No. 12 CIV. 2236 ALC DF, 2012 WL 4320608, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2012) (holding…

Ferrante v. Rexroat

Contrary to Plaintiff's supposition, this rule does not alter application of the “anniversary rule, ”…