Valk v. Hubbard

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: April 30, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00003
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JUSTIN VALK,

Plaintiff, 3:24-cv-3 (BKS/ML)

v.

JOHN L. HUBBARD and SHAWN SMITH,

Defendants.

Appearances: Plaintiff pro se: Justin Valk #9033 Delaware County Correctional Facility 280 Phoebe Lane, Suite 6 Delhi, NY 13753 Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Justin Valk brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and asserts that defendants John Hubbard and Shawn Smith, district attorneys in the Delaware County District Attorney Office, subjected him to malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 3). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric who, on April 3, 2024, granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP, and issued a Report-Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with leave to replead. (Dkt. No. 5). Plaintiff was informed that he had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the Report-Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Id. at 10). Plaintiff filed objections on April 15, 2024. (Dkt. No. 6). For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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) (citation omitted). Findings and recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear error. Id. To the extent a party makes “merely perfunctory responses, argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments” in the original submission, the Court will only review for clear error. Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). III. DISCUSSION In the Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended that the complaint be dismissed on the grounds that, among other things: (1) the complaint was “entirely lacking in factual allegations” and contained only “the threadbare elements of a malicious prosecution claim,” and therefore failed “to give Defendants fair notice of the claims against them,” (Dkt. No. 5, at 5); (2) the claims against Defendants in their official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, (id. at 6); and (3) the claims against Defendants, both of

whom are district attorneys, “are likely barred by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity,” (id. at 7). In his “objection” to the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff writes as follows: “I am objecting to the dismissal of the complaint as I am currently working on an amended complaint.” (Dkt. No. 6, at 1). Even construed liberally, Plaintiff’s “objection” does not identify any particular finding in the Report-Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Thus, the Court reviews for clear error. Machicote, 2011 WL 3809920 at *2, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95351, at *4; Ortiz, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 451. Accordingly, having reviewed for clear error and having found none, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is ADOPTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to replead; 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 is 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 ttmely amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to close this case; 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: April 30, 2024 Syracuse, New York prann dh a. (umes Brenda K. Sannes Chief U.S. District Judge