United States District Court, E.D. New York
April 11, 2014
GIBRINE ANABA, Plaintiff,
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, DET. MARK BENDETTI SHIELD NO. 1364, P.O. LLOYD ALLEN, DET. LIEUTENANT MATT SULLIVAN, DET. BRANDON O'HARA, Defendants.
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq., Of Counsel, Law Office of Jon L. Norinsberg, New York, NY, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Arlene S. Zwilling, Assistant County Attorney, Suffolk County Attorney's Office, Hauppauge, NY, Attorneys for the Defendants.
ARTHUR D. SPATT, District Judge.
On April 22, 2011, the Plaintiff Gibrine Anaba (the "Plaintiff") commenced this action against the Defendants County of Suffolk; Detective Mark Bendetti, Shield No. 1364; Police Officer Lloyd Allen, Detective Lieutenant Matt Sullivan; and Detective Brandon O'Hara (the "Defendants"). The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 for violations of his civil rights under the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution. In this regard, the Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that he was falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted for allegedly raping his girlfriend.
On January 15, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown issued a sua sponte Report and Recommendation (the "Report") recommending that this Court dismiss this action be dismissed in its entirety. Judge Brown made this recommendation upon discovering that after a multiday hearing at which the Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters at issue here, the New York State Family Court judge concluded that the Plaintiff did rape and assault his girlfriend in front of their children. Accordingly, Judge Brown determined that the Plaintiff's claims were barred due to collateral estoppel, which precluded him from revisiting whether the rape and assault of his girlfriend were fabricated. As a consequence, the Plaintiff could not argue that there was no probable cause for his arrest or for his prosecution. To date, there have been no objections filed to the Report.
In reviewing a report and recommendation, a court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C). "To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). The Court has reviewed Judge Brownl's Report and finds it to be persuasive and without any legal or factual errors. There being no objection to Judge Brown's Report, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Judge Brown's Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. The Court dismisses this action with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.