Avent v. Platinum Plus Auto Protection

N.D. New York

Avent v. Platinum Plus Auto Protection

District Court, N.D. New York·Decided September 16, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-00831·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

REUBEN AVENT,

Plaintiff, 1:19-cv-0831 (BKS/DJS)

v.

PLATINUM PLUS AUTO PROTECTION, CHRISTINA STRAIN, and PAYLINK DIRECT,

Defendants.

Appearances: Plaintiff, pro se: Reuben Avent New York, NY 10039 Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Reuben Avent, commenced this action pro se on July 11, 2019, alleging that the Defendants violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1988. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart who, on July 29, 2019, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims under §§ 1983 and 1981 be dismissed without prejudice and that Plaintiff’s claims under § 1988 be dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 5). Magistrate Judge Stewart advised Plaintiff that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), he had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report, and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Dkt. No. 5, at 8). No objections have been filed. As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report- Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. For these reasons, it is ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981 are DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT ISSO ORDERED.

BrendaK.Sannes U.S. District Judge Dated: September 16, 2019 Syracuse, New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

REUBEN AVENT,

Plaintiff, 1:19-cv-0831 (BKS/DJS)

v.

PLATINUM PLUS AUTO PROTECTION, CHRISTINA STRAIN, and PAYLINK DIRECT,

Defendants.

Appearances: Plaintiff, pro se: Reuben Avent New York, NY 10039 Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Reuben Avent, commenced this action pro se on July 11, 2019, alleging that the Defendants violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1988. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart who, on July 29, 2019, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims under §§ 1983 and 1981 be dismissed without prejudice and that Plaintiff’s claims under § 1988 be dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 5). Magistrate Judge Stewart advised Plaintiff that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), he had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report, and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Dkt. No. 5, at 8). No objections have been filed. As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report- Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. For these reasons, it is ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981 are DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT ISSO ORDERED.

BrendaK.Sannes U.S. District Judge Dated: September 16, 2019 Syracuse, New York

Avent v. Platinum Plus Auto Protection, (N.D.N.Y. 2019).

Pincite

Avent v. Platinum Plus Auto Protection (Avent v. Platinum Plus Auto Protection) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related