Ennis v. New York Department of Parole, No. 5:2018cv00501 - Document 9 (N.D.N.Y 2018)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 5 Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is accepted for filing, and this action is referred to Magistrate Judge Dancks for review of its pleading sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/14/18. (lmw) (Copy served upon Pro se plaintiff via regular mail)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ennis v. New York Department of Parole Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ EDDIE D. ENNIS, Plaintiff, 5:18-CV-0501 (GTS/TWD) v. NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE, Tina Stafford, Director, Defendant. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: EDDIE D. ENNIS Plaintiff, Pro Se 114 Franklin Street, Apt. 208 Watertown, New York 13601 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Eddie D. Ennis (“Plaintiff”) against the New York Department of Parole (“Defendant”), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed unless, within forty-five days of the issuance of a Decision and Order adopting the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint correcting its pleading defects. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the ReportRecommendation, and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) Instead, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint attempting to correct the pleading defects identified by Magistrate Judge Dancks in the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 6). Dockets.Justia.com After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks 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 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is accepted for filing and will be referred to Magistrate Judge Dancks for review of its pleading sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 6) is accepted for filing and this action is referred to Magistrate Judge Dancks for review of its pleading sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Dated: August 14, 2018 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.
