Peoples v. Annucci et al, No. 9:2022cv01263 - Document 29 (N.D.N.Y 2023)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 27 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendant's motion to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status and conditionally dismiss the Complaint for failure to pay the filing fee (Dkt. No. 19 ) is DENIED. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/13/2023. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Peoples v. Annucci et al Doc. 29 Case 9:22-cv-01263-GTS-TWD Document 29 Filed 06/13/23 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ LEROY PEOPLES, Plaintiff, 9:22-CV-1263 (GTS/TWD) v. JOHN SHEA, Defendant. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: LEROY PEOPLES, 05-A-2620 Plaintiff, Pro Se Clinton Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2001 Dannemora, New York 12929 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 AIMEE COWAN, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Leroy Peoples (“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned parole officer (“Defendant”), are (1) Defendant’s motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status under the so-called “three strikes rule” and conditionally dismiss the Complaint for failure to pay the required filing fee, and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s motion be denied. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 27.) The parties have not Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:22-cv-01263-GTS-TWD Document 29 Filed 06/13/23 Page 2 of 2 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 Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the ReportRecommendation: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 stated therein, and Defendant’s motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status and conditionally dismiss the Complaint for failure to pay the filing fee is denied. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 27) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status and conditionally dismiss the Complaint for failure to pay the filing fee (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED. Dated: June 13, 2023 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.
