Opinion
5:22-CV-801 (MAD/TWD)
11-03-2023
MEGAN ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL BENEDICT, RUDOLPH SOHL, AND SARA SOHL, Defendants.
APPEARANCES: MEGAN ROGERS Plaintiff pro se
ORDER
APPEARANCES: MEGAN ROGERS Plaintiff pro se
MAE A. D'AGOSTINO, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff Megan Rogers ("Plaintiff") commenced this action, pro se, against Michael Benedict, Rudolph ("Rudy") Sohl, Sara Sohl, Spike Benedict/Deuce, Sohl, and Reedy Sohl. See Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff submitted her complaint using five different complaint forms for causes of action arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the American with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. See Id. Plaintiff also submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). See Dkt. No. 2.
On October 04, 2022, Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks issued an Order and Report-Recommendation granting Plaintiff's IFP application. See Dkt. No. 7. After conducting an initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. See id. On April 12, 2022, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Dancks's Report-Recommendation in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 10.
On April 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging claims against Michael Benedict, Rudy Sohl, and Sara Sohl ("Defendants"). See Dkt. No. 11. On August 29, 2023, Magistrate Judge Dancks reviewed the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and issued an Order and Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice. See Dkt. No. 12. Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended Plaintiff's amended complaint be dismissed because Plaintiff's claims were inadequately pled and frivolous. See id. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Order and Report-Recommendation.
When a party declines to file specific objections to a magistrate judge's reportrecommendation, the district court reviews these recommendations for clear error. See LeBron v. Uhler, No. 9:22-CV-10, 2023 WL 2500507, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2023) (citing McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F.Supp.2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)). After the 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).
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must review her amended complaint under a more lenient standard. See Govan v. Campbell, 289 F.Supp.2d 289, 295 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). The Second Circuit has instructed that the Court must "make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of legal training." Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983). Thus, "a document filed pro se is 'to be liberally construed,' and 'a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
Having reviewed the August 29, 2023, Order and Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff's amended complaint, and the applicable law, the Court does not discern any clear error. Magistrate Judge Dancks correctly determined that Plaintiff's amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief and she was previously afforded an opportunity to amend. See Dkt. Nos. 10, 11; see also Canning v. Hofmann, No. 1:15-CV-0493, 2015 WL 6690170, *5 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2015).
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12) is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and close the case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff in accordance with Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.