Opinion
1:22-CV-0196 (GTS/CFH)
08-04-2022
CHRISTOPHER JAVIER VAZQUEZ CARBUCCIA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW YORK; and SCHENECTADY COUNTY FAMILY COURT, Defendants.
APPEARANCES: CHRISTOPHER JAVIER VAZQUEZ CARBUCCIA Plaintiff, Pro Se
APPEARANCES: CHRISTOPHER JAVIER VAZQUEZ CARBUCCIA Plaintiff, Pro Se
DECISION AND ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Christopher Javier Vazquez Carbuccia (“Plaintiff”) against the State of New York and Schenectady Family Court (“Defendants) is United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel's Report- Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without prior leave to amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
The Court notes that, although Plaintiff was enjoined from litigating civil actions pro se in this District, that injunction was issued after he filed his Complaint in this action on March 2, 2022, and thus does not apply to this action. In re: Christopher J. Vazquez, 22-PF-0002, Pre-Filing Order, at 1-3 (N.D.N.Y. filed May 23, 2022).
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Hummel's thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Hummel 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, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without prior leave to amend.
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).
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and without prior leave to amend.