Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyndce/8:2017cv01138/111856/11
Timestamp: 2018-02-22 23:13:09
Document Index: 542637235

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 9 Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report and Recommendation in its entirety for Williams v. Richards et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York New York Northern District Court Williams v. Richards et al Filing 11
Williams v. Richards et al
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 9 Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint is sua sponte dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and that Plaintiff may refile this action only upon demonstrating that the underlying criminal indictment (or, if applicable, conviction) has been overturned or is otherwise invalidated. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/9/18. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ SHAKA D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, 8:17-CV-1138 (GTS/TWD) v. JEROME J. RICHARDS, Judge; JAMES J. MINDELL, Assis. Attorney General; JOHN W. HALLETT, Attorney; and ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General, Defendants. __________________________________________ APPEARANCES: SHAKA D. WILLIAMS Plaintiff, Pro Se Gouverneur Correctional Facility Scotch Settlement Road P.O. Box 480 Gouverneur, New York 13642 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Shaka D. Williams (“Plaintiff”), against the four above-captioned individuals (“Defendants”), is U.S. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and that Plaintiff may refile this action only upon demonstrating that the underlying criminal indictment (or, if applicable, conviction) has been overturned or is otherwise invalidated. (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) Based upon a careful review of this matter, the Court can find no clear error1 in the Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Hummel 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. 9.) ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is sua sponte DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and that Plaintiff may refile this action only upon demonstrating that the underlying criminal indictment (or, if applicable, conviction) has been overturned or is otherwise invalidated. Dated: February 9, 2018 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY Chief United States District Judge 1 When, as here, no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.: see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1. (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2