Mclaurin v. Onondaga County ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________ CURTEZ MCLAURIN, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0373 v. (GTS/TWD) ONONDAGA COUNTY; and SYRACUSE POLICE DEPT., Defendants. ________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: CURTEZ MCLAURIN, 19000388 Plaintiff, Pro Se Onondaga County Justice Center 555 South State Street Syracuse, New York 13202 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Curtez Mclaurin (“Plaintiff”) against the two above-captioned entities (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT curing the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff wish to file such an Amended Complaint in this action, that Amended Complaint must be a complete pleading which complies with the pleading standards set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 and Local Rule 10.1 of the District’s Local Rules of Practice, and which will supercede and replace his original Complaint in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint within the thirty (30) day time period, the Amended Complaint shall be returned to Magistrate Judge Dancks for further 1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear-error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear-error review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dated: January 17, 2023 Syracuse, New York Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge