Robinson v. Wright et al, No. 5:2021cv01098 - Document 12 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the # 9 Order and Report-Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims asserted in the Complaint are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD for failure to stat e a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's # 11 Amended Complaint is accepted for filing, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to send it to Judge Lov ric for initial review; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's # 10 letter motion requesting an extension of time to amendthe Complaint is DENIED as moot. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 5/11/2022. {Copy served upon pro se Plaintiff via regular mail}(pjh, )

Download PDF
Robinson v. Wright et al Doc. 12 Case 5:21-cv-01098-TJM-ML Document 12 Filed 05/12/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ CHRISTOPHER E. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. 5:21-CV-1098 (TJM/ML) MICHAEL WRIGHT, New York State Parole Officer; MATTHEW MULLEN, New York State Parole Officer; and TONIA ZIMMERMAN, New York State Parole Officer, Defendants. ________________________________________ THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION The Clerk of the Court sent the pro se complaint (Dkt. No. 1) together with an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 7) and a motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 4) filed by Christopher E. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) to the Hon. Miroslav Lovric, United States Magistrate Judge, for review. Judge Lovric granted Plaintiff’s amended in forma pauperis application, denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel with leave to renew, and recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. See Order and Rep-Rec., Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff did not object to the recommendation for dismissal in the Order and Report-Recommendation and the time to do so has passed, although Plaintiff did file an amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 11. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:21-cv-01098-TJM-ML Document 12 Filed 05/12/22 Page 2 of 2 II. DISCUSSION After examining the record, this Court has determined that the recommendation for dismissal in the Order and Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. The Court will accept and adopt Judge Lovric’s recommendation for the reasons stated within the Order and Report-Recommendation. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Judge Lovric’s Order and Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 9, is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims asserted in the Complaint are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 11, is accepted for filing, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to send it to Judge Lovric for initial review; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s letter motion requesting an extension of time to amend the Complaint, Dkt. No. 10, is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 11, 2022 2

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.