Johnson v. Persinger

Opinion

ARTES DISTRICFS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EE Loe T WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MAY 02 2025 “an hey quik VICTOR JOHNSON, LESTER DISTRICL SS

Plaintiff, Vv. 18-CV-1152 (JLS) (HKS) WILLIAM PERSINGER, New York State Police Officer; JOHN DIPASQUALE; DEAN SCIRRI; TROOPER ROBERT MILES; AND TROOPER JAMES L. MOSCATO, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Victor Johnson brings claims pursuant 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging that Defendants violated his Constitutional rights during the course of certain state criminal proceedings. See Dkt. 85.! The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 24. Before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Persinger and Dipasquale (Dkt. 89); as well as by Defendants Scirri and Moscato (Dkt. 110). Plaintiff opposed the [110] motion. Dkt. 112. Scirri and Moscato replied. Dkt. 113. On April 8, 2025, Judge Schroeder issued a Report, Recommendation, and Order (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant the [89] and [110] motions to dismiss. Dkt. 114. As a result, “Plaintiffs remaining claims [would be]: 1) the false

1 The Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 85) is the operative complaint.

arrest and false imprisonment claims against Inv. Persinger and Inv. Dipasquale related to the First Intimidation Charge; and 2) the illegal seizure of property claim against Inv. Dipasquale related to the First Intimidation Charge.” Jd. at 21. And “[t]hose claims are against Inv. Persinger and Inv. Dipasquale in their individual capacities.” Id. Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). This Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and the relevant record. Based on that review, the Court accepts Judge Schroeder's recommendation. For the reasons above and in the R&R, the [89] and [110] motions to dismiss are GRANTED. The case is referred back to Judge Schroeder in accordance with the February 18, 2020 referral order. See Dkt. 24. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 2, 2025 /) Buffalo, New York \ 7 / ( Lb □ JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE