David C. Lettieri v. New York State Police, New York State Trooper Doe, The Broome County Humane Society, David Gaska, Karen Matson, Vestal Animal Hospital, and Vestal Animal Veterinarian Doe

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAVID C. LETTIERI,

Plaintiff, 3:23-cv-1547 (BKS/ML)

v.

NEW YORK STATE POLICE, NEW YORK STATE TROOPER DOE, THE BROOME COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY, DAVID GASKA, KAREN MATSON, VESTAL ANIMAL HOSPITAL, and VESTAL ANIMAL VETERINARIAN DOE,

Defendants.

Appearances: Plaintiff Pro Se: David C. Lettieri 16091-509 Devens Federal Medical Center Post Office Box 879 Ayer, MA 01432

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff pro se David C. Lettieri brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, inter alia, that his constitutional rights were violated by Defendant New York State Police. (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted on May 6, 2026, (Dkt. Nos. 7, 33), and he subsequently filed an amended complaint naming additional Defendants, (Dkt. No. 36). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric for an initial review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Local Rule 72.3(d). On October 8, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lovric issued a Report- Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend to the extent it asserts claims against Defendant New York State Police and New York State Trooper Doe in his official capacity, and dismissed with leave to amend to the extent it asserts claims against Defendants New York State Trooper Doe in his individual capacity, the Broome

County Humane Society, David Gaska, Karen Matson, Vestal Animal Hospital, and Vestal Animal Veterinarian Doe. (Dkt. No. 43, at 24). Magistrate Judge Lovric 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-Recommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Dkt. No. 43, at 25). On October 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation and a second amended complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 44, 45). This court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A proper objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the [Report-Recommendation] that the

objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.” Kruger v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 2d 290, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting DuBois v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 11-cv-4904, 2012 WL 4060586, at *1, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131678, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2012), aff'd, 533 F. App'x 40 (2d Cir. 2013)). Properly raised objections must be “specific and clearly aimed at particular findings” in the report. Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “[E]ven a pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal . . . .” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-cv-13320, 2011 WL 3809920 at *2, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95351, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (quoting Pinkney v. Progressive Home Health Servs., 2008 WL 2811816, at *1, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55034, at *2–3 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2008)). Findings and recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear error. Molefe, 602 F. Supp. 2d at 487 Even though Plaintiff has filed an “objection” to the Report-Recommendation, (Dkt. No.

44), Plaintiff has not raised any objection that is “specific and clearly aimed at particular findings” in the Report-Recommendation. Rather, Plaintiff claims that he has filed an amended complaint, “which is the second amended complaint and now renders the ‘report and recommendation’ as moot.” (Id. at 1). However, because Plaintiff has already amended his complaint, (Dkt. No. 36), any other amendments to his complaint are permitted only with opposing counsel’s written consent or with the Court’s leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). As such, Magistrate Judge Lovric issued a text order striking Plaintiff’s second amended complaint from the record. (Dkt. No. 46). Even though Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint against certain defendants, it was premature for Plaintiff to do so before this Court reviewed the Report-Recommendation. See Barzee v. Wison, No. 24-cv-

1237, 2024 WL 4751552, at *13, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205947, at *36 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 24-cv-1237, 2024 WL 4969972, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219726 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2024) (instructing the plaintiff to wait until the district court judge rules on the Report-Recommendation before filing a proposed amended complaint). Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and finding none, the Court adopts it for the reasons stated therein. For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 43) is ADOPTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 36) is DISMISSED without leave to amend to the extent it asserts claims against Defendant New York State Police and New York State Trooper Doe in his official capacity; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 36) is DISMISSED without prejudice, with leave to file an amended complaint as to claims against Defendants New York State Trooper Doe in his individual capacity, the Broome County Humane Society, David Gaska, Karen Matson, Vestal Animal Hospital, and Vestal Animal Veterinarian Doe; and it is further ORDERED that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Any amended complaint must be a complete pleading which will replace the current complaint in total; and it 1s further ORDERED that if Plaintiff files a timely amended complaint, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Lovric for review; and if Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to close this case without further order from the Court; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 26, 2026 Syracuse, New York Pram da Gurnee Brenda K. Sannes Chief U.S. District Judge