Stokes v. Kreidler, No. 5:2018cv00113 - Document 6 (N.D.N.Y 2018)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendations. Pltf's 5 objections to the R&R are overruled. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to any claims brought against Deft in her official capacity. The remaining claims in the complaint are dismissed without prejudice subject to the lifting of the Heck bar. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 3/8/18. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(sfp, )
Download PDF
Stokes v. Kreidler Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ SHANE T. STOKES SR., Plaintiff, vs. 5:18-CV-113 (TJM-ATB) DENISE M. KREIDLER, Individually and in Her Official Capacity, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, United States District Judge DECISION & ORDER This action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that Defendant, an official court reporter, violated Plaintiff’s due process rights by altering trial transcripts. The Court referred the case to the Hon. Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation, dated January 30, 2018, gave Plaintiff’s Complaint the official review required of actions brought in forma pauperis. Magistreate Judge Baxter concluded that Plaintiff’s Complaint violated the rule stated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). If Plaintiff were to prevail on his claims 1 in this matter he would necessarily call into question his prosecution in the underlying criminal matter. Magistrate Judge Baxter therefore recommended that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice to refiling should the Heck bar be lifted. Judge Baxter also recommended that all claims brought against Defendant in her official capacity be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation. Plaintiff agreed that his claim was not cognizable due to Heck and suggested that voluntary dismissal was appropriate. When 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 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, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation. The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff has agreed to “voluntarily dismiss” or discontinue the Complaint. The Court finds, however, that accepting the Report-Recommendation would be the most efficient means of recognizing that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted while achieving the Plaintiff’s aim of discontinuing the case until such time as the Heck bar is no longer in place. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the Report-Recommendation 2 of Magistrate Judge Baxter, dkt. # 5, are hereby OVERRULED. The ReportRecommendation, dkt. # 4, is hereby ACCEPTED, and: 1. The Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to any claims brought against Defendant in her official capacity; and 2. The remaining claims in the Complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to the lifting of the Heck bar. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:March 8, 2018 3