Johnson v. Synchrony Bank, No. 5:2022cv00450 - Document 7 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. The nineteen actions noted herein are sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice and without prior leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/21/2022. (Copy served upon plaintiff ia regular mail)(sal)

Download PDF

Johnson v. Synchrony Bank Doc. 7 Case 5:22-cv-00450-GTS-TWD Document 7 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0439 (GTS/TWD) v. MICHAEL J. RUSSO, Defendant. __________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0440 (GTS/TWD) v. RUSHLOW ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant. __________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0441 (GTS/TWD) v. MONRO MUFFLER BRAKE & SERVICE, Defendant. _________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0442 (GTS/TWD) v. ROSETTI, Defendant. Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:22-cv-00450-GTS-TWD Document 7 Filed 06/21/22 Page 2 of 7 _________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0443 (GTS/TWD) v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant. _________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0444 (GTS/TWD) v. GIBSON, McASKILL & CROSBY, LLP, Defendant. _________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0445 (GTS/TWD) v. TRUSTAGE, Defendant. _________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0446 (GTS/TWD) v. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, LLC, Defendant. 2 Case 5:22-cv-00450-GTS-TWD Document 7 Filed 06/21/22 Page 3 of 7 _________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0447 (GTS/TWD) v. EMPRO, Defendant. __________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0448 (GTS/TWD) v. BITRATEGAMING, Defendant. __________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0449 (GTS/TWD) v. NEW YORK STATE DIV. OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Defendant. ____________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0450 (GTS/TWD) v. SYNCHRONY BANK, Defendant. 3 Case 5:22-cv-00450-GTS-TWD Document 7 Filed 06/21/22 Page 4 of 7 ___________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0451 (GTS/TWD) v. VERA HOUSE, Defendant. ___________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0452 (GTS/TWD) v. BLACK RIVER APARTMENTS, Defendant. ___________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0453 (GTS/TWD) v. HUMAN RESOURCES ADMIN. DEP’T OF HOMELESS SERVICES, Defendant. ___________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0454 (GTS/TWD) v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DSS, 4 Case 5:22-cv-00450-GTS-TWD Document 7 Filed 06/21/22 Page 5 of 7 Defendant. ____________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0455 (GTS/TWD) v. GIBBS, Defendant. ____________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0456 (GTS/TWD) v. SCHENECTADY COUNTY EFCU, Defendant. _____________________________________________ ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0457 (GTS/TWD) v. ESIS, INC., Defendant. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: ROBERT W. JOHNSON Plaintiff, Pro Se 112 Court Street, Apt. 2 Watertown, New York 13601 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge 5 Case 5:22-cv-00450-GTS-TWD Document 7 Filed 06/21/22 Page 6 of 7 DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Robert W. Johnson, in the nineteen above-captioned actions are (1) United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that all of the actions be sua sponte dismissed without leave to amend, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and (2) Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6.) Even when construed with the utmost of special leniency, Plaintiff’s Objections contain no specific challenge to any portion of the ReportRecommendation.1 After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation:2 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court 1 When a specific objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's reportrecommendation, the Court subjects that portion to a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be “specific,” the objection must, with particularity, “identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.” N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c); see also Mario v. P&C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Although Mario filed objections to the magistrate's report and recommendation, the statement with respect to his Title VII claim was not specific enough to preserve this claim for review. The only reference made to the Title VII claim was one sentence on the last page of his objections, where he stated that it was error to deny his motion on the Title VII claim ‘[f]or the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.’ This bare statement, devoid of any reference to specific findings or recommendations to which he objected and why, and unsupported by legal authority, was not sufficient to preserve the Title VII claim.”). 2 When no specific objection is made to a portion of a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion 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 and citations omitted). 6 Case 5:22-cv-00450-GTS-TWD Document 7 Filed 06/21/22 Page 7 of 7 accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein, and the nineteen above-captioned actions are sua sponte dismissed with prejudice and without prior leave to amend, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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 the nineteen above-captioned actions are sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice and without prior leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dated: June 21, 2022 Syracuse, New York 7

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.