The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
Currently before the Court in this pro se civil rights action filed by Kamal Karna Roy ("Plaintiff") is United States Magistrate Judge David R. Homer's Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to fully comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10. (Dkt. No. 5.) For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted; Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice; and Plaintiff is directed to show cause, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order, as to why the Court should not issue an Order prohibiting him from filing any future pro se actions in this Court without prior leave of the Court.
On June 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action, alleging violations of his civil rights. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Complaint was barely legible; and those portions that were legible were barely comprehensible. (Id.) On June 24, 2009, Magistrate Judge Homer directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint on the ground that the original Complaint failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10. (Dkt. No. 3.)
On July 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 4.) Like the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint was barely legible; and those portions that were legible were barely comprehensible. (Id.) On August 8, 2009, Magistrate Judge Homer recommended that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed in its entirety for failure to comply with the Court's Order of June 24, 2009. (Dkt. No. 5.)
On August 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 6.)*fn1 Like the original Complaint and Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's Objections are either barely legible or barely comprehensible.
II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Standard of Review of Report-Recommendation
When specific objections are made to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).*fn2
When only general objections are made to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation (or the objecting party merely repeats the allegations of his pleading), the Court reviews for clear error or manifest injustice. See Brown v. Peters, 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997) (Pooler, J.) [collecting cases], aff'd without opinion, 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir. 1999).*fn3 Similarly, when a party makes no objection to a portion of a report-recommendation, the Court reviews that portion for clear error or manifest injustice. See Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) [citations omitted]; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition [citations omitted]. After conducting 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)(C).
B. Legal Standard Governing Dismissals for Failure to Comply with Rules 8 and 10
Magistrate Judge Homer correctly recited the legal standard governing a dismissal under Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 3, at 1-3.) As a result, these standards are incorporated by reference in this Decision and Order.
C. Legal Standard Governing Dismissals for Failure to Comply with Court Order
The Second Circuit has identified five factors to be considered when deciding whether or not to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order (or failure ...