United States District Court, S.D. New York
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
B. DANIELS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Bobby James Carter brought this action
against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., sued as "JP Morgan
Chasebank, " and JPMorgan Chase Private Banking
Compliance Department (collectively, "Chase"), and
individual defendants Jennie Marmol ("Marmol"),
sued as "Jennie F. Marmoh, " and Ysidro Trevino
("Trevino"), sued as "Trevino Ysidro, "
for failing to return a note valued at $3, 400, 513, 249.05.
(Compl., ECF No. 1.) Chase moved to dismiss Plaintiffs
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20.) Before this Court is
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn's December 14, 2017 Report
and Recommendation ("Report, " ECF No. 32),
recommending that Chase's motion to dismiss be
granted. This Court adopts that
Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations" set forth within
a magistrate judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court must review de novo the portions of a
magistrate judge's report to which a party properly
objects. Id. Portions of a magistrate judge's
report to which no or merely perfunctory objections have been
made are reviewed for clear error. See Edwards v.
Fischer, 414 F.Supp.2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
Clear error is present only when "upon review of the
entire record, [the court is] left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed." Brown
v. Cunningham, No. 14-CV-3515, 2015 WL 3536615, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2015) (internal citations omitted).
Judge Netburn advised the parties that failure to file timely
objections to the Report would constitute a waiver of those
objections on appeal. (Report at 11.) No. objection to the
Report has been filed. Having found no clear error, this Court
accepts that recommendation.
Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the
claims asserted in a complaint." Trs. of Upstate
N.Y. Eng'rs Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Mgmt., No. 13
Civ. 3180 (PGG), 2015 WL 5472944, at * 13 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16,
2015). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court
"accept[s] all factual allegations in the complaint as
true, and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs
favor." Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 335
(2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Burch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery,
Inc., 551 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir. 2008)). A court is
"not, however, 'bound to accept conclusory
allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
conclusions."' Faber v. Metro. Life Ins.
Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Rolon
v. Henneman, 517 F.3d 140, 149 (2d Cir. 2008)). In order
to survive such a motion, a complaint must plead "enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
se complaints are held to less stringent standards than
those drafted by lawyers, even following Twombly and
Iqbal." Thomas v. Westchester Cty., No.
12-CV-6718 (CS), 2013 WL 3357171, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 3,
2013); see also Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d
Cir. 2009). While courts read pro se complaints
"to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest,
" Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir.
2006) (internal citation omitted), pro se plaintiffs
"cannot withstand a motion to dismiss unless their
pleadings contain factual allegations sufficient to raise a
'right to relief above the speculative level.'"
Jackson v. NYS Dep't of Labor, 709 F.Supp.2d
218, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555). Dismissal is justified where "the complaint
lacks an allegation regarding an element necessary to obtain
relief, " and the "duty to liberally construe a
plaintiffs complaint [is not] the equivalent of a duty to
re-write it." Geldzahler v. N.Y.Med. Coll., 663
F.Supp.2d 379, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal citations
omitted); see also Sharma v. D'Silva, 157
F.Supp.3d 293, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
CHASE'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED
Report correctly determined that Plaintiffs Complaint does
not state a claim for relief. "[Plaintiffs] allegation
that the documents he submitted to Chase constitute a $3.4
billion note is unbelievable." (Report at 9.) The
documents Plaintiff submitted to Chase "do not
constitute a valuable financial instrument[:]" they are
incomprehensible, filled with spelling errors, unsigned by a
Chase representative, not printed on any institutional type
of letterhead, and do not satisfy the definition of a note as
defined under New York's Uniform Commercial Code §
3-104. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff fails
to state a claim for relief, and his Complaint is dismissed.
Judge Netburn's Report and Recommendation is adopted.
Chase's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the Complaint
Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at ECF No. 20.