From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. Laclair

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Aug 25, 2009
No. 9:08-CV-0037 (FJS/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2009)

Opinion

No. 9:08-CV-0037 (FJS/DEP).

August 25, 2009

FOR PLAINTIFF : MILTON THOMPSON, Pro Se, 97-A-1874 Franklin Correctional Facility, Malone, NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS: HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO Attorney General of the State of New York The Capitol, Albany, NY, AARON M. BALDWIN, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General.


ORDER


After carefully considering the entire file in this matter, including Magistrate Judge Peebles' January 30, 2009 Report, Recommendation and Order, to which the parties have not filed any objections, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' January 30, 2009 Report, Recommendation and Order is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his complaint as proposed is DENIED as futile; and the Court further

ORDERS that, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order; and the Court further

ORDERS that, if Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within the required time frame, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further Order of this Court for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report, Recommendation and Order; and the Court further

ORDERS that, if Plaintiff files an amended complaint within the required time frame, Defendants shall file a response to the amended complaint in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Thompson v. Laclair

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Aug 25, 2009
No. 9:08-CV-0037 (FJS/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2009)
Case details for

Thompson v. Laclair

Case Details

Full title:MILTON THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. DARWIN LACLAIR, Superintendent, A. McKEE…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Aug 25, 2009

Citations

No. 9:08-CV-0037 (FJS/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2009)

Citing Cases

Vidal v. Venettozi

“Without denial of a cognizable liberty interest, there can be no due process violation.” Amaker v. Lee, No.…

Malki v. Hayes

The temporary deprivation of telephone privileges does not meet this standard. See, e.g., Garcia v. Watts,…