Ingraham et al v. Palantine Motel, No. 1:2020cv01187 - Document 12 (N.D.N.Y 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Lovric's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) shall be DISMISSED with prejudice (and wit hout further Order of the Court) UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiffs file an Amended Complaint that corrects the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiffs file an Amended Complaint, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Lovric for review of its pleading sufficiency. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 4/9/2021. (Copy served upon plaintiffs via regular mail) (sal )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ingraham et al v. Palantine Motel Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ BRUCE INGRAHAM; and MOLLY INGRAHAM, Plaintiffs, 1:20-CV-1187 (GTS/ML) v. PALENTINE MOTEL, Defendant. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: BRUCE INGRAHAM Plaintiff, Pro Se 2455 Route 9, Apt. 2 P.O. Box 861 Lake Pleasant, New York 12108 MOLLY INGRAHAM Plaintiff, Pro Se 2455 Route 9, Apt. 2 P.O. Box 861 Lake Pleasant, New York 12108 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Bruce Ingraham and Molly Ingraham (“Plaintiffs”) against the Palentine Motel in Palentine Bridge, New York (“Defendant”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be sua sponte dismissed, with leave to replead, for failure to state a claim and frivolousness pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 11.) Plaintiffs have not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Dockets.Justia.com Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Lovric’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation. 1 Magistrate Judge Lovric 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, and Plaintiffs’ Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice (and without further Order of the Court) unless, within thirty days of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiffs file an Amended Complaint that corrects the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation. Finally, the Court notes that, in the past four years, Plaintiffs have filed seven actions in this Court. See Ingraham v. Red Carpet Hous., Corp., 1:17-CV-1076 (GLS/CFH); Ingraham v. Cuomo, 1:20-CV-0147 (TJM/CFH); Ingraham v. Mayfield State Troopers, 1:20-CV-1186 (GLS/TWD); Ingraham v. Palentin, 1:20-CV-1187 (GTS/ML); Ingraham v. Casey, 1:20-CV-1188 (DNH/CFH); Ingraham v. Saint Mary Hosp., 1:20-CV-1189 (MAD/CFH); Ingraham v. Hartford Conniceut Ins., 1:20-CV-1190 (GLS/DJS). Complaints in five of those actions have been dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or frivolousness (with the complaint in the two other actions apparently not having yet been reviewed for their pleading sufficiency). See Ingraham v. Red Carpet Hous., Corp., 1:17-CV-1076 (GLS/CFH); Ingraham v. Cuomo, 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 to 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 1:20-CV-0147 (TJM/CFH); Ingraham v. Mayfield State Troopers, 1:20-CV-1186 (GLS/TWD); Ingraham v. Palentin, 1:20-CV-1187 (GTS/ML); Ingraham v. Hartford Conniceut Ins., 1:20-CV-1190 (GLS/DJS). Plaintiffs are respectfully cautioned that they are fast becoming abusive litigants. If they continue their abusiveness, they will be directed to show cause why they should not be barred from proceeding filing future actions pro se (i.e., without counsel) without prior leave of the Court. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No.11) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED with prejudice (and without further Order of the Court) UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiffs file an Amended Complaint that corrects the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiffs file an Amended Complaint, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Lovric for review of its pleading sufficiency. Dated: April 9, 2021 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.
