Alexander v. Murphy et al, No. 5:2018cv00607 - Document 9 (N.D.N.Y 2018)
Court Description: DECISION and ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendation. The Court adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915( e)(2)(B) as follows: (1) Plaintiff's 1983 claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367 over Plaintiff's state law claims without prejudice to Plaintiff refilling those claims in state court. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 11/14/2018. (Copy served via regular mail) (dpk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Alexander v. Murphy et al Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ SAMUEL ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. 5:18-CV-607 (TJM/TWD) THOMAS J. MURPHY, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER This pro se civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, for a ReportRecommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). The Report-Recommendation, dated July 2, 2018, recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Magistrate Judge Dancks finds that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against Defendants should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without leave to replead. Magistrate Judge Dancks also recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed. After examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. The Court therefore adopts the Report-Recommendation 1 Dockets.Justia.com for the reasons stated therein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as follows: (1) Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling those claims in state court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:November 14, 2018 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.
