Peterson v. United States

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00394
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CARLOS D. PETERSON, SR.,

Plaintiff,

-against- 5:25-cv-394 (LEK/TWD)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Carlos D. Peterson, Sr. filed this action on March 28, 2025, against the United States alleging that Defendant “fail[ed] to protect deliberate indifferent [sic] to medical needs” and engaged in “doctors [sic] malspractice.” Dkt. No. 1 at 3–4 (“Complaint”). On May 21, 2025, the Honorable Therese Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report- Recommendation and Order recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. No. 4 (“Report and Recommendation”). Plaintiff filed objections on May 28, 2025. Dkt. No. 5 (“Objections”). For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. II. BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with Judge Dancks’s Report and Recommendation, as well as Plaintiff’s factual allegations contained within. See R. & R. at 2. III. LEGAL STANDARD “Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28 United States Code Section 636 govern the review of decisions rendered by Magistrate Judges.” A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 191 F. Supp. 2d 404, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636;

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Review of decisions rendered by magistrate judges are also governed by the Local Rules. See L.R. 72.1. 28 U.S.C. § 636 states: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When written objections are filed and the district court conducts a de novo review, that “de novo determination does not require the Court to conduct a new hearing; rather, it mandates that the Court give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made.” A.V. by Versace, 191 F. Supp. 2d at 406 (emphasis in original). “The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.” DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “When a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments, the Court will review the [report and recommendation] strictly for clear error.” N.Y.C. Dist. Councils. of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Forde, 341 F. Supp. 3d 334, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). “The objections of parties appearing pro se are ‘generally accorded leniency’ and should be construed ‘to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.’” DiPilato, 662 F. Supp. 2d at

340 (emphasis in original) (quoting Milano v. Astrue, No. 05-CV-6527, 2008 WL 4410131, at *24 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2008)). “Nonetheless, even 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, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument.” DiPilato, 662 F. Supp. 2d at 340 (quoting Pinkney v. Progressive Home Health Servs., No. 06-CV-5023, 2008 WL 2811816, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2008)). IV. DISCUSSION Plaintiff filed objections to Judge Dancks’s Report and Recommendation. See generally Obj. However, those objections are not aimed at any specific portion of the Report and Recommendation and indeed appear to merely recycle some of the claims contained in the

Complaint. See Obj. at 2–5. Therefore, the Court will analyze the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See N.Y.C. Dist. Councils. of Carpenters Pension, 341 F. Supp. 3d at 336. Upon review of Judge Dancks’s thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation the Court finds no clear error and accordingly adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice. V. LEAVE TO AMEND In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, he is afforded the opportunity to file an amended complaint within forty-five days of the filing of this Memorandum-Decision and Order. Plaintiff must name one or more Defendants and set forth a short and plain statement of the facts that support any claims that the Defendants engaged in misconduct or wrongdoing that violated Plaintiffs constitutional nghts. Any amended complaint filed by Plaintiff must bear an original signature and must be a complete pleading which will supersede and replace the original Complaint in its entirety. If Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, this matter shall be returned to the Court for further review. VI. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 4, is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice, and it is further ORDERED, that if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must file an amended complaint as set forth above within Forty-Five (45) days from the date of the filing of this Memorandum-Decision and Order. If Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, this matter shall be returned to the Court for further review; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT ISSO ORDERED.

DATED: October 8, 2025 Albany, New York AWRENCE E. KAHN United States District Judge