United States District Court, N.D. New York
April 3, 2014
DUDLEY L. HARRIS, Plaintiff,
WILLIAM SUMMERS, et al., Defendants.
LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on February 3, 2014, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 4 ("Report-Recommendation").
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's reportrecommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). "If no objections are filed... reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error." Edwards v. Fischer , 414 F.Supp.2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Cephas v. Nash , 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) ("As a rule, a party's failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge's report waives further judicial review of the point."); Farid v. Bouey , 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. After a thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for clear error or manifest injustice.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Plaintiff's claims for perjury and harassment are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties to this action in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.