Hines v. Dell, No. 5:2020cv00638 - Document 5 (N.D.N.Y 2020)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's # 4 objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, are hereby OVERRULED. The # 3 Report-Recommendation, is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The Plaintiff's # 1 Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of venue. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 8/5/2020. {Pro Se Plaintiff served via certified mail and regular mail}(pjh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hines v. Dell Doc. 5 Case 5:20-cv-00638-TJM-ATB Document 5 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ DASHON HINES, Plaintiff, vs. 5:20-CV-638 (TJM/ATB) Lt. ROSE J. DELL, New Haven Police Department, Defendant. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER The Court referred this pro se civil action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, a Lieutenant in the New Haven, Connecticut, Police Department, violated his rights by ordering him not to contact Patricia King about an incident he wanted the New Haven Police Department to Investigate. Patricia King is New Haven Corporate Counsel. Plaintiff resides in Buffalo, New York. Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 157, issued on June 11, 2020, recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff filing the Complaint in a proper venue. Magistrate Judge Baxter notes that Plaintiff, who resides in the Western District of New York, is subject to a filing restriction in that District, 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:20-cv-00638-TJM-ATB Document 5 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 3 and has recently filed a number of cases in this District, apparently in an effort to avoid that restriction. Magistrate Judge Baxter also finds that venue in this District is improper because neither of the parties reside in this District, and none of the events giving rise to the Complaint occurred in the District. Given Plaintiff’s past attempts to manipulate venue to avoid filing restrictions, however, he does not recommend that the Court transfer the case to a proper venue. Instead, he recommends that the Court dismiss the case without prejudice to Plaintiff filing the case in a proper court. Plaintiff objected to the Report-Recommendation. See dkt. # 4. W hen a party objects to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation, 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. Plaintiff’s objections largely repeat and amplify the allegations in his Complaint, which are that he complained about an incident in New Haven to Patricia King. When she did not respond to that and another request, Defendant Rose Dell of the New Haven Police Department contacted Plaintiff and asked him to contact Police, rather than King, about the incident he wanted investigated. None of Plaintiffs objections address the reason for dismissal of the action–lack of venue–or the reasons why Magistrate Judge Baxter does not recommend transferring venue to the District of Connecticut. Having considered all of Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes that Report-Recommendation should be accepted and adopted f or the reasons stated therein. 2 Case 5:20-cv-00638-TJM-ATB Document 5 Filed 08/05/20 Page 3 of 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, dkt. # 4, are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 3, is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of venue. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:August 5, 2020 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.
