UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
April 17, 2012
RAFAEL VARELA, PLAINTIFF,
THE COUNTY OF RENSSELEAR*FN1 ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff pro se Rafael Varela commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court alleging his constitutional rights were violated by defendants. (See generally Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 1.) Following defendants removal to this court, (see Dkt. No. 1 at 1-4), Varela filed, among other things, a motion for a preliminary injunction (PI) and temporary restraining order (TRO). (See Dkt. No. 50.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) filed March 8, 2012, Magistrate Judge David R. Homer recommended that Varela's motion be denied.*fn2 (See generally R&R, Dkt. No. 67.) Pending are Varela's objections to the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 74.) For the reasons that follow, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
II. Standard of Review
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.
Varela's first objection to the R&R addresses Judge Homer's purported misunderstanding of the "Constitutional right to freedom and liberty of Mr. Varela (to drive where ever he wants)." (Dkt. No. 74 ¶ 2.) Based on this right-which essentially amounts to the right to drive without restriction-Varela avers that Judge Homer erred when he recommended that the PI/TRO be denied. (See id. ¶¶ 1-3.) Simply put, the court disagrees. Varela's claim is wholly unsubstantiated, and as such, is at best, a general or vague objection. (See id. ¶¶ 2-8.) Likewise, Varela's second objection, (see id. ¶¶ 10-15), to Judge Homer's footnote is of no moment as the notation was dicta in the background section of the R&R.*fn3
(See R&R at 3 n.3.) More importantly though, Varela's objection is moot as Judge Homer permitted him to amend his complaint, in which he can articulate the substance of his objection. (See R&R at 11, 14.) Because Varela fails to raise any specific errors in the R&R, the court concludes that a de novo review is unnecessary. Having found no clear error in the R&R, the court accepts and adopts Judge Homer's R&R in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to amend the caption to correct the spelling of "Rensselaer"; and it is further
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David R. Homer's March 8, 2012 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 67) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Varela's motion for PI/TRO (Dkt. No. 50) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.