Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Irwin v. Plattsburgh City Police Department

United States District Court, N.D. New York

October 16, 2014

TIMOTHY L. IRWIN, Plaintiff,
v.
PLATTSBURGH CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; DARIN M. PERROTTE; VASSAR; and LT. RASCO, Defendants.

ORDER

LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on September 5, 2014, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 11 ("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 made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A., 434 F.Appx. 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011); Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument.").

No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none. The Court notes, however, that subsequent to the filing of the Report-Recommendation, which recommends dismissal of the Complaint with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 14. Therefore, the portion of the Report-Recommendation dismissing Plaintiff's original Complaint is rejected as moot.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as modified; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 9) is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's second Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED as moot;[1] and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.