Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180726_0001198.ENY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:55:40+00:00

Document:
On June 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Locke issued a Report and Recommendation (the "R&R"). (ECF No. 58.) The R&R recommended that the Court grant the individual defendants' motions to dismiss in their entirety and dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice, except for plaintiffs causes of action based on the "Brooklyn Incidents, " discussed infra, which the R&R recommended the Court dismiss with prejudice. (Id. at 2.) On July 2, 2018, plaintiff filed objections to the R&R ("plaintiffs objections"). (ECF No. 60.) On July 16, 2018, the individual defendants filed an opposition in response to plaintiffs objections. (ECF No. 61.) The Court has fully considered the parties' submissions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in its entirety.
A district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F.Supp. 1330, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Walker v. Hood, 679 F.Supp. 372, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). As to those portions of a report to which no "specific written objections" are made, the Court may accept the findings contained therein, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings are not clearly erroneous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 956 F.Supp. 509, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). When "a party submits a timely objection to a report and recommendation, the district judge will review the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected under a de novo standard of review." Jeffries v. Verizon, 10-CV-2686 (JFB)(AKT), 2012 WL 4344188, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2012); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made."); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.").
Plaintiff submitted an "objection" to the Court that: (1) summarizes the R&R, (2) requests that the Court grant plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint, and (3) provides a statement of facts summarizing the claims he would include in this second complaint. Plaintiffs submission does not, however, address the reasons provided in the R&R for recommending dismissal. (ECF No. 60 at 2-8.) Specifically, it fails to rebut the findings and/or recommendations that (1) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims arising from the alleged Brooklyn Incidents (ECF No. 58 at 9-11), (2) plaintiff failed to state a claim under either Section 1983 or Section 1985 (id at 11-23), and (3) in light of these first two grounds for dismissal, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any alleged state law claims (id at 23-24). Instead, plaintiffs response discusses his mental and physical health (ECF No. 60 at 3-4), as well as the claims he already alleged in his amended complaint against the New York Police Department ("NYPD") for alleged unreasonable search and seizure and false arrest (id at 4-6), against the NYPD in connection with his alleged stalker (id at 6-7), and against a "DCDA officer" and the municipality for deprivation of property (id. at 7-8). As discussed further infra, the R&R fully and correctly addressed each of these claims, and plaintiffs response fails to raise new arguments that undermine the correct analysis contained in the R&R.
Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having conducted a de novo review of the entire R&R, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the R&R in their entirety.
Second, the Court agrees with the R&R's findings that plaintiff failed to state a claim under either Section 1983 or Section 1985. Magistrate Judge Locke correctly explained that the Section 1983 claims failed for the following reasons: (1) plaintiff failed to allege personal involvement of the individually named defendants-plaintiffs claims with respect to these defendants "arise solely in the context of the Brooklyn Incidents, over which the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as described above" (id. at 13), (2) the claims based on the April 13, 2013 website posting and February 7, 2014 detention are time-barred, and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a basis for tolling the statute of limitations (id), (3) plaintiff failed to allege that he was denied procedural due process with respect to the October 16, 2016 threat of commitment because he was not actually committed (id. at 16), (4) plaintiff has also failed to allege that he was denied substantive due process with respect to the October 16, 2016 incident because he has not alleged any use of physical force, that the officer was able to effectuate the threat of detention, or that plaintiff was subsequently detained, (5) plaintiff has not alleged that he was without an adequate post-deprivation remedy, or that the deprivation was the result of a "random and unauthorized" act, as required to succeed on his claim regarding the alleged December 16, 2016 theft of his wallet (id. at 18-19), and (6) plaintiffs Monell claim fails because he included no specific allegations against or references to New York City, or allegations regarding a municipal policy, practice, or custom, to support such a claim (id at 20-21 (citing Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978)). With regard to plaintiffs Section 1985 conspiracy claim, Magistrate Judge Locke correctly explained that this claim (1) was barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine because the individual defendants are part of a single municipal entity, and plaintiff does not allege that any of them possessed an independent conspiratorial purpose (id. at 22), and (2) failed because plaintiff did not make any allegations regarding racial or class-based animus (id. at 23).

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