Eggsware v. Google et al, No. 1:2022cv00868 - Document 7 (N.D.N.Y 2022)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of this Court UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT correcting the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation. Any Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff must be a complete p leading that supercedes and replaces his original Complaint in all respects. Should Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint within the above-referenced thirty (30) day time period, the Amended Complaint shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 10/11/20222. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sa )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Eggsware v. Google et al Doc. 7 Case 1:22-cv-00868-GTS-DJS Document 7 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________ SHAWN EGGSWARE, Plaintiff, 1:22-CV-0868 (GTS/DJS) v. GOOGLE; INSTAGRAM; STEFANIE JOANNE ANGELINA GERMANOTTA; CHRISTOPHER MAURICE BROWN; KANYE OMARI WEST; WILLARD CARROL SMITH, JR.; ELLA-MARIJA LANI YELICH-O-CONNOR; THOMAS JEFFREY HANKS; STEPHEN TYRONE COLBERT; KALEY CUOCO; ERIC MARLON BISHOP; MATTHEW DAVID McCONAUGHEY; CARLY RAE JEPSEN; JERRY ANGELO BROOKS; and LARRY DAVID, Defendants. ________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: SHAWN EGGSWARE Plaintiff, Pro Se 66 2nd Street Waterford, NY 12188 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Shawn Eggware (“Plaintiff”) against the fifteen above-captioned entities and individuals (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim with prior leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-00868-GTS-DJS Document 7 Filed 10/11/22 Page 2 of 3 reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart’s thorough ReportRecommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of this Court UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date 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 Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff must be a complete pleading that supercedes and replaces his original Complaint in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint within the abovereferenced thirty (30) day time period, the Amended Complaint shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 1 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 t accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (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). 2 Case 1:22-cv-00868-GTS-DJS Document 7 Filed 10/11/22 Page 3 of 3 Dated: October 11, 2022 Syracuse, New York 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
