Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180801_0001789.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:54:50+00:00

Document:
In his Report, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein advised the parties that failure to file timely objections to the Report would constitute a waiver of those objections on appeal. (Id. at 7-8); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Plaintiffs did not file any objections. Having reviewed the Report for clear error, this Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's recommendation in full.
This 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). Portions of the magistrate judge's report to which objections are properly filed are reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Portions of a magistrate judge's report to which no or improper objections have been made are reviewed for clear error. Azkour v. Haonzi, No. 11 Civ. 5780 (RJS), 2017 WL 3016942, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2017). 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." United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
"Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers, even following 7 wombly and Iqbal" Thomas v. Westchester C/y., No. 12-CV-6718, 2013 WL3357171, 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 and quotation marks 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 and alterations omitted); see also Sharma v. D'Silva, 157 F.Supp.3d 293, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
A claim preclusion challenge "may properly be raised via a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)." Thompson v. Cty. of Frankin, 15 F.3d 245, 253 (2d. Cir. 1994). Claim preclusion applies when "(1) the previous action involved an adjudication on the merits; (2) the previous action involved the plaintiffs or those in privity with them; (3) the claims asserted in the subsequent action were, or could have been, raised in the prior action." Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 285 (2d Cir. 2000). In his Report, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein properly found that the instant lawsuit meets all three elements: the instant action involves the same parties and the same claims as those in the Florida federal action, (compare Compl., with Florida Federal Compl.), which was dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim, (Mot. to Dismiss Order at 1.) Therefore, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's recommendation to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint is ADOPTED.

References: § 636
 § 636
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.