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 Jaime Luevano ("Plaintiff") is United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter's Report-Recommendation recommending that (1) Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, and (2) the Court certify that any appeal from this matter would not be taken in good faith pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). (Dkt. No. 4.) For the reasons that follow, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; and the Court certifies that any appeal from this matter would not be taken in good faith.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 28, 2010. (Dkt. No. 1.) In an almost incomprehensible recitation of allegations, Plaintiff appears to allege that his civil rights were violated during his criminal trial because the jury panel was "set-up." (Dkt. No. 1, at 4.) As relief for these alleged civil rights violations, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, a "writ of mandamus" to "reopen and review" his criminal conviction. (Dkt. No. 1, at 1.) For a more detailed recitation of the allegations and claims set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court refers the reader to the Complaint, as well as Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation, in their entirety. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 4.)
B. Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation
On July 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Baxter issued a Report-Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) the Northern District of New York is not a proper venue for this action because neither Plaintiff nor any of the named Defendants reside within this District; and (2) the Complaint is frivolous. (See generally Dkt. No. 4.) For the sake of brevity, the Court will not recite Magistrate Judge Baxter's particular findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for the review of the parties. The Court will note only that, as discussed in Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff has filed at least forty-six complaints in various courts all over the country alleging various violations surrounding his trial, all of which were deemed frivolous. (Dkt. No. 4, at 6-9.)
C. Plaintiff's Objections to the Report-Recommendation
On July 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed his Objections to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 5.) In his Objections, Plaintiff argues as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Baxter should be disqualified for reasons of "slander and discrimination"; (2) venue is proper because the "interstate violations were made when Defendant Hillary Clinton was a United States Senator in New York State; and (3) the three strikes method is unconstitutional. (Dkt. No. 5, at 1-2.) Of these three arguments, only the first one warrants further elaboration in this Decision and Order. In that argument, Plaintiff reasons that Magistrate Judge Baxter's statement in his Report-Recommendation that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed for being the "product of delusion and fantasy" constitutes "slander and discrimination."
II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Standard of Review Governing a 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).*fn1
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).*fn2 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 ...