Linder v. Oneida County District Attorney's Office et al, No. 6:2023cv01061 - Document 10 (N.D.N.Y 2023)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED in its entirety without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii), 1915A(b)(1). Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T Suddaby on 12/19/2023. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal)

Download PDF
Linder v. Oneida County District Attorney's Office et al Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________ WILLIE LINDER, JR., a/k/a Willie Linder, Plaintiff, 6:23-CV-1061 (GTS/TWD) v. ONEIDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; SCOTT D. McNAMARA, District Atty.; GRANT GARRAMONE, District Atty.; TODD CARVILE, District Atty., Defendants. _________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: WILLIE LINDER, JR., 14325 Plaintiff, Pro Se Oneida Correctional Facility 6075 Judd Road Oriskany, New York 13424 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Willie Linder, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) against the Oneida County District Attorney’s Office and District Attorneys Scott D. McNamara, Grant Garramone, and Todd Carville (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be dismissed in its entirety and without leave to amend for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii), 1915A(b)(1). (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, 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 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 set forth therein, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety and without leave to amend for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii), 1915A(b)(1). ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii), 1915A(b)(1). Dated: December 19, 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 t 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.