Fuller v. Davy, No. 3:2019cv00572 - Document 11 (N.D.N.Y 2019)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4 ) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's claims against Johnson City and Johnson City Police Department are DISMISSED. This action's r emaining claims (i.e., its claims against Defendant Davy) are consolidated with Plaintiff's previously filed action, Fuller v. Johnson City Police Dep't, 18-CV-0902 (N.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 2, 2018), and that previously filed action be designated as the lead case and all future filings are to be in that lead case only. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 7/24/2019. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail). (sal )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fuller v. Davy Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___________________________________________ ALESHA T. FULLER, Plaintiff, 3:19-CV-0572 (GTS/ML) v. PATROLMAN JUSTIN DAVY; JOHNSON CITY; and JOHNSON CITY POLICE DEP’T, Defendants. ___________________________________________ APPEARANCES: ALESHA T. FULLER Plaintiff, Pro Se 256 ½ Main Street Binghamton, New York 13905 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Alesha T. Fuller Pendell (“Plaintiff”) against Patrolman Justin Davy, Johnson City and the Johnson City Police Department (“Defendants”) claiming civil rights violations arising from a traffic stop, is Chief United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Johnson City and the Johnson City Police Department be dismissed and that this action’s remaining claims (i.e., its claims against Defendant Davy) be consolidated with Plaintiff’s previously filed action, Fuller v. Johnson City Police Dep’t, 18-CV-0902 (N.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 2, 2018). (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the ReportRecommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) Dockets.Justia.com After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Peebles’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Peebles 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, Plaintiff’s claims against Johnson City and the Johnson City Police Department are dismissed and that this action’s remaining claims (i.e., its claims against Defendant Davy) are consolidated with Plaintiff’s previously filed action, Fuller v. Johnson City Police Dep’t, 18-CV-0902 (N.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 2, 2018). ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Johnson City and the Johnson City Police Department are DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that this action’s remaining claims (i.e., its claims against Defendant Davy) are consolidated with Plaintiff’s previously filed action, Fuller v. Johnson City Police Dep’t, 18CV-0902 (N.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 2, 2018), and that previously filed action be designated as the 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 lead case and all future filings are to be in that lead case only. Dated: July 24, 2019 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.
