Gray v. United States Department of Justice

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________ MICHELE GRAY et al., 1:20-cv-712 Plaintiffs, (GLS/DJS) v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. ________________________________ ORDER On July 31, 2020, Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart issued a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R), which recommends that plaintiff pro se M.G., a minor, be dismissed from the action, with leave to replead any claims on M.G.’s behalf if the minor becomes represented. (Dkt. No. 7.) The R&R also denied plaintiff pro se Michele Gray’s motion

for the appointment of counsel, (Dkt. No. 3), and request for authorization to electronically file, (Dkt. No. 4), with leave to renew. (Dkt. No. 7.) Pending before the court are Gray’s objections to the R&R, (Dkt. No. 10

at 1-3), motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for M.G., (id. at 3-4), and motions requesting to file new exhibits, (Dkt. Nos. 14, 16, 18, 20). Only specific objections warrant de novo review. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484, 2006 WL 149049, at *3-5

(N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). Objections that are general, conclusory, frivolous, or a mere reiteration of an argument already made to the magistrate judge trigger only clear error review. See id. at *4-5.

Given that Gray’s arguments are devoid of any specific objections to the substance of Magistrate Judge Stewart’s analysis, they trigger review for clear error only, see Almonte, 2006 WL 149049, at *5-6, of which the court finds none. Accordingly, the R&R, (Dkt. No. 7), is adopted in its

entirety. As to Gray’s motions requesting to file new exhibits, (Dkt. Nos. 14, 16, 18, 20), such request is premature, as explained by Magistrate Judge

Stewart, (Dkt. No. 7 at 4), and is therefore denied with leave to renew. To be sure, to the extent Gray’s objections and subsequent filings can be construed as an appeal of the R&R, the R&R is affirmed, as it is neither

contrary to law nor clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Mitchell v. Cuomo, No. 9:17-CV-0892, 2019 WL 1397195, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2019). Lastly, Gray’s motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem,

2 (Dkt. No. 10 at 3-4), is referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 7) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that M.G. is DISMISSED from this action, with leave to

replead any claims on M.G.’s behalf if the minor becomes represented; and it is further ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s order denying Gray’s

motion for the appointment of counsel, with leave to renew, and Gray’s request to participate in electronic filing, with leave to renew (Dkt. No. 7) is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED that Gray’s motions requesting to file new exhibits (Dkt.

Nos. 14, 16, 18, 20) are DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RENEW; and it is further ORDERED that Gray’s motion for the appointment of a guardian ad

litem (Dkt. No. 10 at 3-4) is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Stewart; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Order to the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 October 28, 2020 \ Albany, New York Sea te District Judge