From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abascal v. Hilton

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jan 30, 2008
9:04-CV-1401 (LEK/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2008)

Summary

holding a pro se plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend "where the plaintiff has already been given a chance to amend his pleading"

Summary of this case from Wheeler v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

Opinion

9:04-CV-1401 (LEK/GHL).

January 30, 2008


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on December 28, 2007, by the Honorable George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 41). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Plaintiff Isidro Abascal, which were filed on January 7, 2008. Objections (Dkt. No. 42).

It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein.

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 41) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant Hilton's Motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 37) is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Hilton that are not the subject of Defendant Hilton's Motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 37) are DISMISSED pursuant to the Court's authority to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and/or Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3), for the reasons stated above; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Langbart are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to serve, for the reasons stated above; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Abascal v. Hilton

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jan 30, 2008
9:04-CV-1401 (LEK/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2008)

holding a pro se plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend "where the plaintiff has already been given a chance to amend his pleading"

Summary of this case from Wheeler v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
Case details for

Abascal v. Hilton

Case Details

Full title:ISIDRO ABASCAL, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN HILTON, Psychologist, and MITCHELL…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Jan 30, 2008

Citations

9:04-CV-1401 (LEK/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2008)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Baxter

See Davis v. Cnty. of Erie, No. 22-CV-554JLS(F), 2022 WL 18215866, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2022) (denying…

Wheeler v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

Despite the substantial leeway afforded to pro se litigants, providing Plaintiff a fourth opportunity to…