Dobbs v. Citizens Bank, No. 1:2022cv01226 - Document 10 (N.D.N.Y 2023)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the # 9 Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that the # 8 Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file in this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 6/8/2023. {Served upon pro se via regular and certified mail} (pjh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dobbs v. Citizens Bank Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ KRISTY DOBBS, Plaintiff, v. 1:22-CV-1226 (TJM/DJS) CITIZENS BANK, Defendant. ______________________________________________ THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Kristy Dobbs filed this action pro se alleging that Defendant Citizens Bank violated her rights by withdrawing money from her account. See Compl., Dkt. No 1. This matter came before the Hon. Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, for an initial review and Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 636(b). Judge Stewart recommended that the Complaint be dismissed but that Plaintiff be granted leave to replead. See December 7, 2022 Report-Recommendation and Order, Dkt. No. 5. Over Plaintiff’s objection, the Court adopted Judge Stewart’s recommendations. See December 28, 2022 Decision and Order, Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint using a form 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint, again alleging that money was withdrawn from her account at Citizens Bank without her permission. See Dkt. No. 8. Judge Stewart conducted an initial review of the Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See February 7, 2023 Report-Recommendation 1 Dockets.Justia.com and Order, Dkt. No. 9. He recommends that the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff: fails to make any allegations establishing that Citizen Bank engaged in state action; fails to identify what federal statute or right she alleges was violated; and, despite being given an opportunity to amend, fails to correct the pleading deficiencies resulting in dismissal of the Complaint, leading Judge Stewart to conclude that granting leave to amend a second time would not induce Plaintiff to add the kind of allegations needed to establish a facially-plausible claim. See Dkt. No. 9 at 1-4. Plaintiff filed no objections to the February 7, 2023 Report-Recommendation and Order, and her time to do so has passed. II. DISCUSSION After examining the record, this Court has determined that the February 7, 2023 Report-Recommendation and Order is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the February 7, 2023 Report- Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 9) for the reasons stated therein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 8) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 8, 2023 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.
