The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff pro se Mazzeo Unum*fn1 brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated by defendants Social Security Administration, New York State Division of Human Rights, State of New York Commission on Judicial Conduct, and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (See Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 7.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) filed October 4, 2011, Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece recommended that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed.*fn2 (See generally R&R, Dkt. No. 4.) Although afforded the opportunity to do so, plaintiff failed to file objections to the R&R; however, in lieu of objections, plaintiff filed a new application to proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP)*fn3 and an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.) For the reasons that follow, the R&R is adopted in its entirety, plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is granted, and his Amended Complaint is dismissed.
Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole,No. 04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id.
As a threshold matter, the court notes that plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R. Having found no clear error in the R&R, the court accepts and adopts Judge Treece's R&R in its entirety. Moreover, while the R&R discussed the failure of the plaintiff's Complaint, the Amended Complaint is similarly flawed. (See Dkt. No. 7.) Even with the liberal construction afforded to plaintiff as a pro se litigant, the Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations, and merely attempts to incorporate by reference the claims alleged in a previous case, 09-cv-1420, dismissed by Judge Kahn in March 2010. (See Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 7.) Because the Amended Complaint fails to not only comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10, but also is devoid of a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it is dismissed.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece's October 4, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 4) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed with this action In Forma
Pauperis (Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 7) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to ...