Lewis v. Onondaga County, NY et al, No. 8:2024cv00013 - Document 21 (N.D.N.Y 2024)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of this C ourt UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT that cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation. Should Plaintiff wish to file an Amended Complaint in this matt er, the Amended Complaint must be a complete pleading which will supercede and replace his original Complaint in all respects. Should Plaintiff file a timely Amended Complaint, the Amended Complaint be returned to Magistrate Judge Stewart for further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T Suddaby on 6/4/2024. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal)

Download PDF
Lewis v. Onondaga County, NY et al Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________ SCOTT PHILLIP LEWIS, Plaintiff, 8:24-CV-0013 (GTS/DJS) v. ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY; and VILLAGE OF SOLVAY, Defendants. ________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: SCOTT PHILLIP LEWIS Plaintiff, Pro Se 1936 Saranac Avenue #3, PMB 411 Lake Placid, New York 12946 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Scott Phillip Lewis (“Plaintiff”) against Onondaga County and the Village of Solvay (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 11.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Dockets.Justia.com Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Stewart 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 Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of this Court UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT that cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff wish to file an Amended Complaint in this matter, the Amended Complaint must be a complete pleading which will supercede and replace his original Complaint in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file a timely Amended Complaint, the Amended Complaint be returned to Magistrate Judge Stewart for further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 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 Dated: June 4, 2024 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.