McCool v. Northumberland County et al, No. 5:2021cv01242 - Document 20 (N.D.N.Y 2022)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10 ) is sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice and without further prior leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 5/2/2022. (A copy of this Decision and Order was served on pro se plaintiff via regular mail with mailing code required by the facility on the outside of the envelope.)(sal )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McCool v. Northumberland County et al Doc. 20 Case 5:21-cv-01242-GTS-TWD Document 20 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________________ JOHN R. McCOOL, Plaintiff, 5:21-CV-1242 (GTS/TWD) v. NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY; SNYDER COUNTY; MICHAEL PIECUCH, D.A.; TONY MATULEWICZ, D.A.; CHESTER H. CLARK, Super. of Inmate Classification NYSDOCCS; JOHN ROBINSON, D.A.; HAROLD WOELFEL, Common Pleas Judge; VINCENT R. MAZESKI, Court Appointed Attorney; THOMAS BOOP, Assis. D.A.; EDWARD W. KLEIN, Assis. D.A.; and ROBERT B. SACAVAGE, D.A. and Common Pleas Court Judge, Defendants. ___________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: JOHN R. McCOOL, DN4994 Plaintiff, Pro Se SCT Coal Township 1 Kelly Drive Coal Township, Pennsylvania 17866 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by John R. McCool (“Plaintiff”) against the eleven above-captioned individuals and entities (“Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, are (1) Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10) be sua sponte dismissed with prejudice and without further prior leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and (2) Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 16, 17.) Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:21-cv-01242-GTS-TWD Document 20 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 3 After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no error in the Report-Recommendation, clear or otherwise: 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. To those reasons, the Court adds only two points. First, even when construed with the utmost of special leniency, Plaintiff’s six-page Objection sets forth only one specific challenge to any portion of the Report-Recommendation (identifying that portion and the basis for the objection): Magistrate Judge Dancks’ purported “mistaken[] conclu[sion]” that McCool v. Snyder Cty., 11-CV-1038, 2014 WL 2930648 (M.D. Pa. June 27, 2014), is “binding” on the undersigned in rendering this Decision and Order. (Compare Dkt. No. 17, at ¶ 4 [Plf.’s Obj.] with Dkt. No. 16, at 2 [Report-Recommendation].) The Court does not construe Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation as containing such a conclusion; rather, the Court construes the Report-Recommendation as citing the abovedescribed decision only as grounds for a finding of res judicata/collateral estoppel and, in the alternative, as persuasive authority for a finding of untimeliness. (Dkt. No. 16, at 7.) The Court finds this finding to be both correct and further supported by the other cases cited in the ReportRecommendation. (Id. at 2-4, 7-9.) Second, the Court continues to find that the claims asserted by Plaintiff in this action suffer from numerous fatal defects: (1) the claims are frivolous in that they were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel (having been repeatedly litigated and decided) and the governing statutes of limitations (arising from events going back to 1995, 1988 and 2 Case 5:21-cv-01242-GTS-TWD Document 20 Filed 05/02/22 Page 3 of 3 1981); (2) the claims fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and (3) Defendants (who are prosecutors sued in their official capacities) are protected from liability as a matter of law based on judicial and/or prosecutorial immunity. (See Dkt. No. 4, at 1-2 [Decision and Order filed Dec. 13, 2021].) ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10) is sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice and without further prior leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Dated: May 2, 2022 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.
