UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
January 4, 2011
FELIPE OTEZE FOWLKES, PLAINTIFF,
COMMISSIONER CHAUNCEY G. PARKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on December 9, 2010 by the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 98). After fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Plaintiff Fowlkes, which were filed on December 20, 2010. Objections (Dkt. No. 101).
This Court is to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. Where, however, an objecting "'party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.'" Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citations and quotations omitted); see alsoBrown v. Peters, No. 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997). "A [district] judge . . . 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).
The Court has considered the Objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 98) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Motion of Defendants Parker, Connolly, Murphy and Felegy for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all claims against them in this action (Dkt. No. 81) is GRANTED, and that all claims against those Defendants set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint are DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Albany, New York
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.