Woolsey v. Mitzel et al, No. 1:2017cv00033 - Document 40 (N.D.N.Y 2017)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER adopting 37 Report and Recommendations. Pltfs' Second Amended Complaint is dismissed. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 7/11/17. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(sfp, )
Download PDF
Woolsey v. Mitzel et al Doc. 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ JEANETTE WOOLSEY, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. 1:17-CV-33 (TJM/DEP) DESIREE ANN MITZEL, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER This pro se civil action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other state and federal statues, alleges a variety of violations of Plaintiffs’ rights as parents of a child removed from their custody. The matter was referred to the Hon. David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). The Report-Recommendation, dated June 13, 2017, recom mends that Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment Complaint be dismissed without leave to re-plead and without prejudice to Plaintiffs refiling the action in a different forum, if appropriate. See dkt. # 37. Plaintiffs filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. See dkt. # 39. W hen objections to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 1 Dockets.Justia.com recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, 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.” Id. Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the Plaintiffs’ objections, the Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. # 39, are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 37, is hereby ADOPTED, and: Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without leave to replead but without prejudice to Plaintiffs re-filing the action in a different forum, if appropriate. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:July 11, 2017 2