Sitts v. New York State et al, No. 3:2020cv01476 - Document 10 (N.D.N.Y 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Lovric's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. The following claims asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) are DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to replead: (1) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant New York State; (2) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Otsego County District Attorney Muehl; (3) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant State Trooper Investigators Hicks, Mackey and Stedman in their official capacities; and (4) Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Hicks, Mackey and Stedman in their individual capacities for perjury on the grand jury or suborning perjury. The remaining claims asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 )-i.e., Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Hicks, Mackey and Stedman in their individual capacities for malicious prosecution, violation of the Due Process Clause, and violation of the Equal Protecti on Clause-shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of this Court UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint that cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation. Should Plaintiff file a timely Amended Complaint, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Lovric for his review. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 5/12/2021. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sitts v. New York State et al Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ JAMES C. SITTS, Plaintiff, 3:20-CV-1476 (GTS/ML) v. NEW YORK STATE; JEREMY HICKS, State Trooper Investigator; BRIAN MACKEY, State Trooper Investigator; SARA STEDMAN, State Trooper Investigator; and JOHN MUEHL, Otsego County Dist. Attorney, Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: JAMES C. SITTS Plaintiff, Pro Se Otsego County Correctional Facility 172 County Highway 33W Cooperstown, New York 13326 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by James C. Sitts (“Plaintiff”) against New York State, three State Trooper Investigators, and Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl (“Defendants”) alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric’s Report-Recommendation recommending that certain of Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice and that the remainder of those claims be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to replead. (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) Dockets.Justia.com After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Lovric’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Lovric has employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the ReportRecommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No.7) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the following claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) are DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to replead: (1) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant New York State; (2) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Otsego County District Attorney Muehl; (3) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant State Trooper Investigators Hicks, Mackey and Stedman in their official capacities; and (4) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hicks, Mackey and Stedman in their individual capacities for perjury on the grand jury or suborning perjury; and it is further 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 ORDERED that the remaining claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1)–i.e., Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hicks, Mackey and Stedman in their individual capacities for malicious prosecution, violation of the Due Process Clause, and violation of the Equal Protection Clause–shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of this Court UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint that cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file a timely Amended Complaint, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Lovric for his review. Dated: May 12, 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.
