The opinion of the court was delivered by: Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: WILLIAM R. PRAILEAU Plaintiff, Pro Se P.O. Box 4750 Schenectady, NY 13204
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this civil action filed pro se by William R. Praileau ("Plaintiff") against the six above-captioned state and municipal employees and entities ("Defendants"), are (1) United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece's Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed, (2) Plaintiff's Objections to the Report-Recommendation, and (3) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 3, 5, 6.) For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is sua sponte dismissed in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Generally, in his original Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach-of-contract against Defendants, under the Court's jurisdiction to entertain diversity-of-citizenship suits (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332), arising from his entry (under duress) into a May 2012 agreement regarding his conditions of his post-release supervision, which is defunct or invalid because it stems from a March 2007 indictment that was improper. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.)
B. Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation
Generally, in his Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Treece recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for each of the following two alternative reasons: (1) Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because Defendants are residents of New York State, and both Plaintiff's mailing address and his approved release address are in Schenectady, New York; (2) in any event, no federal-question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the only conceivable claim that he could have (consistent with the factual allegations of his Complaint) would arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but is barred by the fact that he has failed to show that this conviction or sentence has been overturned, as required by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). (See generally Dkt. No. 3.)
C. Plaintiff's Objections
Generally, in his Objections, Plaintiff asserts the following six arguments: (1) his Complaint cannot be dismissed because it was never properly filed by the Clerk of the Court in accordance with by Fed. R. Civ. P. 3; (2) his Complaint cannot be dismissed because the Court has "corrupt[ed]" his name, given that the nominal plaintiff in this action--"William R. Praileau" is "an artificial person" or "corporation," while that plaintiff's "authorized representative" or "attorney in fact--"William R. Praileau©"--is "a natural person" of "flesh and blood"; (3) his Complaint cannot be dismissed because, by designating him as "pro se" in this action, the Court has denied his right to effective assistance of counsel; (4) his Complaint cannot be dismissed because he never consented Magistrate Judge Treece's participation in this proceeding; (5) Magistrate Judge Treece's finding regarding Plaintiff's underlying sentence in this action is improper because it was based, in part, on information found on the internet at http://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov; and (6) Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation is moot, given that Plaintiff is filing an Amended Complaint. (See generally Dkt. No. 5.)
D. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
Three days after filing his Objections to Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this action. (Dkt. No. 6.) Four days after that, Plaintiff filed exhibits to his Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 7.)
Construed with the utmost of special liberality, Plaintiff's Complaint and exhibits continues to assert claims against Defendants arising from his entry (under duress) into a May 2012 agreement regarding his conditions of his post-release supervision, which is defunct or invalid because it stems from a March 2007 indictment that was improper. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.) The only real differences between Plaintiff's original Complaint and his Amended Complaint are as follows: (1) in addition to asserting a breach-of-contract claim against Defendants, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts five other claims (specifically, conversion, unjust enrichment, estoppel, false imprisonment, and fraud); (2) in addition to invoking the Court's diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff invokes the Court's federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and "28 U.S.C. § 1692e(1)(4)"; (3) Plaintiff lengthens his pleading, inserting an introductory paragraph, "Venue" section, a "Parties" section, and a "Brief History of the Case" section; and (4) Plaintiff expands on his theory that, pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, the nominal plaintiff in this action--"William R. PraileauTM" (a/k/a "William Robert Best")--is "a corporation distinct from [his] authorized representative" --"William R. Praileau©"--who "does NOT reside within the federal United States." (Id. [emphasis in original].)
II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Standard Governing Review of a Report-Recommendation
When a specific objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be "specific," the objection must, with particularity, "identify  the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and  the basis for the objection." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c).*fn1 When performing such a de novo review, "[t]he judge may . . . receive further evidence. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district ...