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 Tracy Barber ("Plaintiff") is United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece's Report-Recommendation recommending that this action be dismissed unless Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint that states a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Dkt. No. 3.) No objection to the Report-Recommendation has been filed, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety' and Plaintiff's Complaint is sua sponte dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision and Order, she files an Amended Complaint that state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this action. (Dkt. No. 1.) Construed with the utmost of special liberality, Plaintiff Complaint appears to attempt to assert one or more claims of gender discrimination against the federal government (and perhaps "county and state government agencies") arising from (1) the denial of "opportunities and . . . services for housing, healthcare, grant [sic], loan [sic], equal employment, financial assistance for student [sic]," in 2009 and/or 2010, and (2) the failure of various courts (specifically, the New York State Court of Claims and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) to rectify these denials, in 2011 (Id.) However, as Magistrate Judge Treece states in his Report-Recommendation, "the Complaint is, at best, disjointed and confusing." (Dkt. No. 3.) For example, it is unlcear precisely who is being sued in this action. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) Indeed, as Magistrate Judge Treece states, "the body of the Complaint is devoid of any factual allegation against a specific Defendant by which this Court can assess any wrongdoing." (Dkt. No. 3.) Nor is there a clear request for relief in the Complaint. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) As Magistrate Judge Treece states, "the documents attached to the Complaint do little to clarify what relief Plaintiff is seeking and on what basis." (Dkt. No. 3.)
For a more detailed recitation of Plaintiff's claims, and the factual allegations in support of those claims, the Court refers the reader to the Complaint in its entirety. (Dkt. No. 1.)
B. Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation
On May 20, 2011, Magistrate Judge Treece issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that (1) Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, and (2) Plaintiff be afforded an opportunity to amend her Complaint to cure the above-described pleading deficiencies. (Dkt. No. 3.) Plaintiff did not submit an objection to the Report-Recommendation and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
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 where the objecting party merely reiterates the same arguments made in its original papers submitted to the magistrate judge, the Court reviews the report-recommendation 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 conducing the appropriate review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in ...