Opinion
5:18-CV-0029 (LEK/ATB)
06-28-2018
AMIARA PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. DAVID PROUD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on March 14, 2018, by the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 7 ("Report-Recommendation").
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. 7) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as to defendants Syracuse Police Department and Ferrante; it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as to defendants City of Syracuse, Braun, Fura, Staub, and Rigby; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim relating to the search of Plaintiff's vehicle is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that the case proceeds as to Plaintiff's claims of false arrest against Proud and the John Doe defendant, if he can be identified and timely served; and it is further
ORDERED, that this case be referred to Judge Baxter for further proceedings, including the ordering of service on the appropriate defendant(s); and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 28, 2018
Albany, New York
/s/_________
Lawrence E. Kahn
U.S. District Judge