Duncanson v. Broome County

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________

AMINATA DUNCANSON,

Plaintiff, No. 3:24-CV-0162 (GTS/ML) v.

BROOME COUNTY, Real Property Taxes,

Defendant. _________________________________________

GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge1

DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Aminata Duncanson ("Plaintiff") against Broome County ("Defendant") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment and retaliation under the First Amendment, is the Report-Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric recommending that the Court sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to re-plead for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 10.) Plaintiff has not objected to the Report-Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, the Court finds no clear error in the Report-Recommendation:2 Magistrate Judge Lovric employed the proper standards, accurately

1 This case has been reassigned to the undersigned from Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, who originally presided over it.

2 When 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) 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. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED without further Order of the Court, UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT correcting the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that any such Amended Complaint must be a complete pleading, which shall supersede and replace her original Complaint in all respects, and which shall not incorporate by reference or rely on any portion of her original Complaint; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff timely file such an Amended Complaint, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Lovric for his review. Dated: December 3, 2024 Syracuse, New York

U.S. District Judge

(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 omitted).