Logan v. Town of Windsor, New York et al, No. 3:2019cv01590 - Document 12 (N.D.N.Y 2020)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Lovric's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED without leave to replead for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 7/20/2020. (Copy served upon Plaintiff via regular and certified mail). (sal )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Logan v. Town of Windsor, New York et al Doc. 12 Case 3:19-cv-01590-GTS-ML Document 12 Filed 07/20/20 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ THERESA A. LOGAN, Plaintiff, 3:19-CV-1590 (GTS/ML) v. TOWN OF WINDSOR, NEW YORK; NEW YORK MUN. RECIPROCAL INS. CO.; ROBERT BRINKS, Snowplow Truck Driver; and GREGG STORY, Wingman for Snowplow Truck Blade, Defendants. ____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: THERESA A. LOGAN Plaintiff, Pro Se 50 Williams Road Windsor, New York 13865 COUGHLIN & GERHART Counsel for Defendants P.O. Box 2039 99 Corporate Drive Binghamton, New York 13902 THOMAS HEGARTY BOUMAN, ESQ. GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se torts action filed by Theresa Logan (“Plaintiff”) asserting a personal injury claim against the Town of Windsor, New York, its insurance company, and two of its employees (“Defendants”), are (1) United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed without leave to replead for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, (2) Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report-Recommendation, (3) Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Objections, Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:19-cv-01590-GTS-ML Document 12 Filed 07/20/20 Page 2 of 3 and (4) Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’ response. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, the Court can find no error in the Report-Recommendation, clear or otherwise. 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. To those reasons, the Court adds only three points. First, Plaintiff is respectfully advised that the primary defect in her Complaint identified by Magistrate Judge Lovric in his Report-Recommendation is not the untimeliness of her claims (due to her violation of the applicable statute of limitations) but the Court’s lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction over those claims (due to lack of either federal question jurisdiction or diversity of jurisdiction). As a result, her argument regarding the appropriateness of tolling the statute of limitations is misplaced: the Court cannot toll a limitations period in an action over which it has no subject-matter jurisdiction. Second, the Court finds, from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint and exhibits thereto, that Defendant New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal appears to be a citizen of New York State for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Third, in response to Defendants’ request (in their response to Plaintiff’s Objections) that the Court admonish Plaintiff (specifically, that the Court warn her that filing further frivolous, vexatious, and malicious litigation regarding this matter may result in the imposition of costs and/or sanctions), the Court agrees to a certain extent: Plaintiff should be, and is hereby, cautioned that further unmerited filings by her will likely result in an Order for her to Show Cause why a Pre-Filing Order should not be issued against her, enjoining her from filing any 2 Case 3:19-cv-01590-GTS-ML Document 12 Filed 07/20/20 Page 3 of 3 future documents in this Court as a pro se litigant without the leave of the Court. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to replead for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Dated: July 20, 2020 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.
