The People of the State of New York v. Parker, No. 6:2021cv01276 - Document 6 (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. Plaintiff's Petition for Removal (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED and this action is REMANDED to the state court in which the proceeding was commenced. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/3/2022. (Copy served upon Matthew Parker via regular and certified mail) (sal )

Download PDF
The People of the State of New York v. Parker Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, 6:21-CV-1276 (GTS/TWD) v. MATTHEW S. PARKER, Defendant. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: MATTHEW S. PARKER Defendant, Pro Se 15 Main Street, Apt. M Sidney, New York 13838 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this removed action against Matthew S. Parker (“Defendant”) by People of the State of New York, is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s petition for removal (Dkt. No. 1) be dismissed and that the action be remanded to state court, because the action does not qualify for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and/or § 1455(a). (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report- Dockets.Justia.com Recommendation.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. 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 Petition for Removal (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED and this action is REMANDED to the state court in which the proceeding was commenced. Dated: February 3, 2022 Syracuse, New York 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.