Opinion
1:24-CV-0614 (AMN/ML)
08-14-2024
JAHEEM R. HILTS, Plaintiff, v. ELLIS HOSP.; A NURSE, name unknown at the moment at Ellis Hosp.; and SHANTANU BAGHEL, D.O. Doctor Provider at Ellis Hosp., Defendants.
ORDER
HON. ANNE M. NARDACCI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
I. INTRODUCTION
On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff pro se Jaheem R. Hilts commenced this action using a form complaint that alleges that his civil rights were violated by Defendants Ellis Hospital, a nurse, and Shantanu Baghel (collectively “Defendants”). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 2. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Lovric, who, on May 23, 2024, denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed IFP on the ground that the application was incomplete. Dkt. No. 5. On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a revised IFP application. Dkt. No. 6.
On July 25, 2024, Magistrate Judge Lovric issued an Order and Report-Recommendation (i) granting Petitioner's renewed IFP request; and (ii) recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, be dismissed with leave to amend (“Report-Recommendation”). Dkt. No. 7. Magistrate Judge Lovric advised that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days within which to file written objections and that failure to object to the Report-Recommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Dkt. No. 7 at 10. Plaintiff filed an objection on August 2, 2024. Dkt. No. 8.
Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court's electronic filing system.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court rejects Plaintiff's objection and adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F.Supp.3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If no specific objections have been filed, this Court reviews a magistrate judge's report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen, 2 F.Supp.3d at 229 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition). Similarly, if an objection simply rehashes arguments originally presented to the magistrate judge, this Court reviews the relevant portions of the report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen, 2 F.Supp.3d at 228-29 & n.6 (collecting cases). “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.'” Dezarea W. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:21-CV-01138 (MAD/TWD), 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:17-CV-0367 (GTS/WBC), 2017 WL 5484663, at *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)).
“[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than that accorded to ‘formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Govan v. Campbell, 289 F.Supp.2d 289, 295 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (additional citations omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to “make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants” from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a legal education. Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). That said, “even 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 ....” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-cv-13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No. 22-cv-567, 2022 WL 16918287, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). After appropriate review, “the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
III. DISCUSSION
The Court adopts all aspects of the Report-Recommendation, finding no clear error therein.
Plaintiff has not raised a specific objection as to the background, the legal framework, or the analysis set forth in the Report-Recommendation, familiarity with which is presumed for purposes of this decision. Plaintiff's objection does not take issue with the ReportRecommendation's interpretation of the Complaint's allegations, including the ReportRecommendation's assumption that the unnamed hospital detailed in the Complaint is Ellis Hospital. See Dkt. No. 7 at 2 n.2. Nor does Plaintiff's objection take issue with the ReportRecommendation's reasoning regarding Plaintiff's failure to plausibly suggest Defendants are state actors for purposes of sustaining an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. No. 7 at 5. Instead, Plaintiff's sole objection reiterates that Plaintiff “was not in The Mental Health System [sic],” and that he “came from Colorado [sic] forced to take medications.” Dkt. No. 8. These factual allegations were included in the Complaint and were considered by Magistrate Judge Lovric in the drafting of the Report-Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Even construed liberally, Plaintiff's objection merely “rehashes” the arguments and allegations found in the Complaint, and thus, Plaintiff makes no specific objection. See Petersen, 2 F.Supp.3d at 228-29 & n.6 (collecting cases).
Therefore, finding no specific objection, this Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen, 2 F.Supp.3d at 229 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition).
The Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Lovric's analysis. In the Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Lovric appropriately applied the legal standard for review of a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Dkt. No. 7 at 3, 5 (citing, inter alia, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) and Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008)). Magistrate Judge Lovric determined that the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint do not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Defendants are private actors whose conduct is “beyond the reach of § 1983.” Magistrate Judge Lovric also determined that Plaintiff fails to plead facts capable of suggesting the private Defendants' actions should be treated as those of the State itself for purposes of maintaining an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court agrees with this assessment of Plaintiff's Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See Dkt. No. 7 at 7 (quoting Revill v. Pratz, 24-CV-2782, 2024 WL 1908587, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2024)).
See Dkt. No. 7 at 6 (citing Holyoke v. S.S.I., 23-CV-1557, 2024 WL 3063679, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. June 20, 2024), and Elisens v. Auburn Cmty. Hosp., 19-CV-1236, 2021 WL 1027915, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2021)).
Magistrate Judge Lovric expressed “serious doubts” that Plaintiff could amend the Complaint to assert actionable claims. Dkt. No. 7 at 8. Nevertheless, in deference to Plaintiff's pro se status, he recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Id. The Court agrees that Plaintiff should be granted an opportunity to amend the complaint. See Nielsen v. Rabin, 746 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Generally, leave to amend should be freely given, and a pro se litigant in particular should be afforded every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he has a valid claim.”) (citation omitted); Bruce v. Tompkins Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. ex rel. Kephart, No. 5:14-CV-0941 (GTS/DEP), 2015 WL 151029, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2015) (“a court should not dismiss a complaint filed by a pro se litigant without granting leave to amend at least once ‘when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated'”) (quoting Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704-05 (2d Cir. 1991)).
Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
The Court reiterates Magistrate Judge Lovric's admonition to Plaintiff that an amended complaint or submission to this Court must set forth specific allegations of fact indicating a deprivation of rights. See Dkt. No. 7 at 8.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 7, is ADOPTED in its entirety; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the filing date of this Order; and the Court further
ORDERS that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and close this case without further order of this Court; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.
The Clerk shall also provide Plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.