From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woods v. Reucker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
May 10, 2018
8:18-CV-0145 (LEK/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. May. 10, 2018)

Opinion

8:18-CV-0145 (LEK/CFH)

05-10-2018

JOSEPH WOODS, Plaintiff, v. TYSON REUCKER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on March 27, 2018, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 9 ("Report-Recommendation"). Pro se plaintiff Joseph Woods did not file objections. Docket.

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. 9) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's 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, as described in the Report-Recommendation, within thirty days of the filing date of this Order; and it is further

Any amended complaint, which shall supersede and replace the original complaint in its entirety, must allege claims of misconduct or wrongdoing against each named defendant that Plaintiff has a legal right to pursue, and over which jurisdiction may properly be exercised. Any amended complaint filed by Plaintiff must also comply with the pleading requirements of Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. --------

ORDERED, that in the event Plaintiff fails to file a signed amended complaint within thirty days of the filing date of this Order, the Clerk shall enter judgment without further order of this Court dismissing this action without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 10, 2018

Albany, New York

/s/_________

Lawrence E. Kahn

U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Woods v. Reucker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
May 10, 2018
8:18-CV-0145 (LEK/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. May. 10, 2018)
Case details for

Woods v. Reucker

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH WOODS, Plaintiff, v. TYSON REUCKER, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: May 10, 2018

Citations

8:18-CV-0145 (LEK/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. May. 10, 2018)