Behn v. Brown et al, No. 3:2016cv00213 - Document 11 (N.D.N.Y 2016)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendations. Pltf's complaint shall be dismissed unless Pltf files an Amended Complaint by 7/25/16. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/24/16. [Served by mail.] (sfp, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Behn v. Brown et al Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ ARTHUR J. BEHN, Plaintiff, 3:16-CV-0213 (GTS/DEP) v. P.O. SHARON BROWN; and S.P.O. ARON PALM, Defendants. __________________________________________ APPEARANCES: ARTHUR J. BEHN Plaintiff, Pro Se Broome County Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2047 Binghamton, New York 13902 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Arthur J. Behn (“Plaintiff”) against New York State Parole Officers Sharon Brown and Aron Palm (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in its entirety but that Plaintiff be permitted leave to file an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 9.) 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 reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Peebles’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report- Dockets.Justia.com Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Peebles 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 Peebles’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED in its entirety, without further notice of the Court, unless, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint that corrects the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation. In addition, Plaintiff is reminded of his duty to immediately notify the Court of any change in his address, in accordance with Local Rule 10.1(c)(2) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court. Dated: June 24, 2016 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY Chief United States District Judge 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
]]>
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.
