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.

Shaut v. Med. Liab. Mut. Ins. Co.

United States District Court, N.D. New York

July 20, 2015

ANNA M. SHAUT, Plaintiff,
v.
MED. LIAB. MUT. INS. CO.; TAMMY HINES, MLMIC Representative; and RAYANNE CONSOL, MLMIC Representative, Defendants.

ANNA M. SHAUT, Utica, New York, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

DECISION and ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.

Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed pro se by Ivan Ramos ("Plaintiff") against the above-captioned insurance company and employees ("Defendants"), are (1) United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter's Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be sua sponte dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and lack of standing, and (2) Plaintiff's Objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 6.) After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, the Court can find no error in the Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Baxter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. (Dkt. No. 4.) To those reasons, the Court adds two points.

First, in her Objections, Plaintiff attempts to challenge Magistrate Judge Baxter's lack-ofstanding conclusion but does not address his alternative lack-of-diversity conclusion (for purposes of subject-matter jurisdiction) or his lack-of-state-action conclusion (for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983). As a result, the latter two conclusions warrant only a clear-error review, which they easily survive.[1] Moreover, Magistrate Judge Baxter's lack-of-standing conclusion survives a de novo review.

Second, attached to her Objections, Plaintiff submits an Amended Complaint. As an initial matter, Magistrate Judge Baxter recommended against providing Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint before dismissal of her action, because the jurisdictional defect in her original Complaint cannot be cured. Magistrate Judge Baxter's finding was prescient. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not cure the jurisdictional defect (or any of the defects) in her original Complaint.

For all of these reasons, Plaintiff's action is dismissed with prejudice.

ACCORDINGLY, it is

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED with prejudice.


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.