United States District Court, N.D. New York
ROBERT H. AJAMIAN, Plaintiff,
KINAH NIMEH, Stock Broker at Gunn Allen Financial, Arbitration 13-02183, Defendant.
ROBERT H. AJAMIAN, Plaintiff Pro Se, Latham, New York.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.
Currently before the Court, in the above-captioned civil rights action filed by Robert H. Ajamian ("Plaintiff") against the above-captioned Defendants, is United States Magistrate Christian F. Hummel's Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 and §1915A for failure to state a claim but otherwise granting Plaintiff leave to submit an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 15.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation and the deadline in which to do so has expired. ( See generally Docket Sheet.) Instead, Plaintiff has filed a proposed amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety. In addition, Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Further, Plaintiff is directed to show cause, within thirty (30) days of this Decision and Order, as to why he should not be barred from filing any future pro se documents or motions in this action without first obtaining leave of the Court.
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a "clear error" review, "the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Id. ; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1. (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) ("I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge's] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Here, based upon a review of this matter, the Court can find no error with Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation, clear or otherwise. (Dkt. No. 15.) Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. ( Id. ) Further, Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation would survive even a de novo review. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons stated therein.
II. Proposed Amended Complaint
Ostensibly pursuant to Magistrate Judge Hummel's recommendation that this Court grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff prematurely filed a proposed amended complaint, but did so by insisting that it be treated as a separate action. (See Ajamian v. Gunn Allen Fin., et al., 1:14-CV-1211 [DNH/ATB].) As Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter observed, that complaint adds a defendant, adds facts and changes the basis for Plaintiff's allegation of jurisdiction. ( See id., Dkt. No. 5) However, because that complaint is "challenging the same conduct by the same defendant at the same time as the complaint in [this action], " Magistrate Judge Baxter closed the separate action and directed that the complaint filed therein be filed as a proposed amended complaint in this action. ( See id., Dkt. No. 5.) Therefore, the Court will review Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint to determine whether a meritorious claim is stated, which would allow the action to go forward.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that Plaintiff filed an exact copy of the original complaint in this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on June 10, 2014, which was thereafter transferred to the Eastern District of New York. See Ajamian v. Nimeh, 2:14-CV-4093(JS/GRB). On September 26, 2014, the District Judge in that case dismissed Plaintiff's claims without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the filing of the Order. See Ajamian v. Nimeh, No. 14-CV-409, 2014 WL 4828884, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2014). Specifically, the Order states that "[i]f Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within the time allowed, the Complaint shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE." Id. (emphasis in original). Plaintiff having not filed an amended complaint in that action within the time allowed, his claims have been dismissed with prejudice. For this reason, the Court finds that the proposed amended complaint in this action is futile because Plaintiff is estopped from pursuing his claims under the doctrine of res judicata.
Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Thus, the doctrine bars later litigation if an earlier decision was (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a case involving the same parties or their privies, and (4) involving the same cause of action.
EDP Med. Computer Sys., Inc. v. United States, 480 F.3d 621, 624 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal citations and quotation omitted).
A dismissal with prejudice has the effect of a final adjudication on the merits favorable to defendant and bars future suits brought by plaintiff upon the same cause of action. Such a dismissal constitutes a final judgment with the preclusive effect of res judicata not only as to all matters litigated and decided by it, but as to all relevant issues which could have been but were not raised and litigated in the suit.
Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir. 1986) (internal citations and quotation omitted).
Consequently, Plaintiff's claims in his original complaint as well as those in the proposed amended complaint are precluded under the doctrine of res judicata. See Nemaizer, 793 F.2d, at 61. For this reason, Plaintiff's proposed amended ...