United States District Court, N.D. New York
Andre Levesque, Pro Se, Springfield, MO, for the Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
GARY L. SHARPE, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff pro se Andre Levesque commenced this action against defendants Clinton County NY, John and Jane Does, Clinton County Correctional Facility, Sgt Dominy, and Sgt Gravelle,  presumably pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,  alleging no discernable claims, but complaining generally of "conspiracy, " "abuses, " "slander, " "torture, " and "something sinister." ( See generally Am. Compl., Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) He seeks relief in the form of medical marijuana and one-hundred million dollars, "preferably in Euros." (Id. at 8.)
In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) issued on August 4, 2014, Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel, upon an initial review of Levesque's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, recommended that Levesque's amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 11.) Pending are Levesque's objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 12.) For the reasons that follow, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Levesque is an inmate, and, it seems, during the time relevant to his claims, was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility. ( See generally Am. Compl.) What is known about the factual underpinnings of Levesque's claims essentially ends there. Further, from what the court can glean from Levesque's amended complaint, many of the actions about which he complains occurred in 2009, including being held in isolation without a disciplinary report and being "slandered." (Id. at 3.) The rest of his amended complaint includes a hodgepodge of events which Levesque describes only in the most conclusory ways, without providing any factual context. For example, Levesque claims that "Sgt Gravelle led an ass[a]ult and Sgt Dominy helped him destroy evidence and cover up [a]buses, " and that "[i]n January of 2013 [he] was returned to [Clinton]... by [H]omeland Security with internal injur[ie]s [that he] sustained during torture and [was] left for dead." (Id. at 3-5.)
B. Procedural History
Levesque filed a complaint on March 17, 2014, along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ( See generally Compl., Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 2.) In a prior R&R, filed on March 21, 2014, Judge Hummel granted Levesque's IFP application, but, after an initial review of Levesque's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, recommended that Levesque's complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 3.) In so recommending, Judge Hummel noted that, given Levesque's utter failure to comply with basic pleading requirements, "it [was] impossible... to decipher under what basis Levesque is attempting to bring suit, how the named defendant was involved, how Levesque was harmed, or what relief is being sought, " and instructed Levesque, if he chose to file an amended complaint, "to allege specific facts sufficient to plausibly state that the named defendant deprived him of constitutional or statutorily protected rights." (Id. at 4-5.)
This court adopted Judge Hummel's first R&R and instructed the Clerk to return the file to the court for further review upon the filing of an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 4.) Thereafter, Levesque filed an amended complaint, which was returned to Judge Hummel for another initial review. Upon initial review of Levesque's amended complaint, Judge Hummel recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed, and, given its incurable deficiencies, that Levesque not be afforded a second opportunity to amend. (Dkt. No. 11 at 2-3.) Levesque then filed objections to the R&R, (Dkt. No. 12), which the court now considers.
III Standard of Review
Before entering final judgment, this court reviews report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party properly objects to a specific element of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL 149049, at *3, *5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those cases where no party has filed an objection, only vague or general objections are made, or a party resubmits the same papers and arguments already ...