CLAIRE C. CECCHI, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on two separate motions to dismiss. The pro se Plaintiff, Carlos Garceran ("Plaintiff') filed a Complaint in this action on April 3, 2014 against several defendants. As explained in more detail below, the defendants State of New Jersey Judiciary, Hon. Thomas Weisenback, A.J.S.C., Hon. James Demarzo, J.S.C., Hon. Michael Maenza, J.S.C., Hon. Rosemary Ramsey, J.S.C., Rashad Shabaka-Burns, Joseph Donofrio, Mathew Potter, Joseph Costello, Kristie Bednarski-Allegretta, Katherine Broderick, and Brian Wilson (the "First Moving Defendants"), and Kristin Dubnoff, Corey Dubnoff, Kevin Weinman, Esq, Roy Kumos, Esq. and Emma Merideth (the "Second Moving Defendants") filed two separate motions to dismiss [ECF Nos, 10, 12],
On December 2, 2014, Magistrate Judge Falk issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that granted the Second Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 14]. Plaintiff subsequently filed an objection to Judge Falk's R&R on January 12, 2015 [ECF No. 17]. The Court decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts Judge Falk's Report and Recommendation granting the Second Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.
The pro se Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this action on April 3, 2014 against several defendants. Although Plaintiff's complaint is difficult to understand, it appears as though his claims stem from an allegedly improper search and criminal arrest in 2006, followed by numerous alleged wrongs arising from an ongoing custody dispute with his former spouse in the New Jersey Superior Court. On June 9, 2014, the First Moving Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint [ECF No. 101. On July 8, 2014, the Second Moving Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint [ECF No. 12]. Plaintiff opposed the dismissal of this action, though it is unclear from Plaintiff's response whether Plaintiff directed the opposition to the First Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or to the Second Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On December 2, 2014, Magistrate Judge Falk issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that the Second Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted [ECF No. 14]. Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R on January 13, 2015 [ECF No. 17].
When a Magistrate Judge addresses motions that are considered dispositive, such as a motion to remand, the Magistrate Judge submits a Report and Recommendation to the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ, P. 72; L. Civ. R. 72.1(a)(2), The district court may then "accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. The District Judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
The Court notes that Plaintiff's objection, filed on January 13, 2015 [ECF No. 17], was twenty-seven (27) days late, and Plaintiff does not offer any justification or good cause as to why the Court should accept this untimely filing. Under such circumstances, a district court is not required to accept the objection and is within its discretion to adopt the R&R without a tie novo review.
Magistrate Judge Falk correctly concluded that Plaintiffs pleading failed to state a plausible claim for relief. "[e]ven construed in the most indulgent way possible given Plaintiffs pro se status." R&R 3 (citing
Judge Falk properly concluded that the Complaint clearly does not state a plausible claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6), Plaintiff recounts a police search, his subsequent arrest, and proceedings before the New Jersey Superior Court in which he generally alleges wrong-doing, but fails to state what claims arise out of those alleged acts upon which this Court can grant relief
With respect to the Second Moving Defendants and their Motion to Dismiss, Judge Falk also properly concluded that, while Plaintiff may be attempting to plead New Jersey state law claims against his ex-wife, her spouse, and her lawyer, the overly general statements in the pleading are insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6) and the "notice pleading" requirement of Rule 8(a). R&R 4 (citing
Furthermore, Plaintiffs objection to Judge Falk's R&R is unconvincing [ECF No, 17]. It does not cite to any legal authority or argue that the Complaint does meet the pleading requirements under Rule 12(b)(6). Instead, Plaintiff makes conclusory statements that the R&R is "wrong." (Pl.'s Objection at 2), Plaintiff, in his objection, also appears to attempt to supplement his pleading by attaching a word-for-word copy of a brief submitted to the Superior Court of New Jersey while he was represented by counsel. (
Having thoroughly reviewed Magistrate Judge Falk's Report and Recommendation and Plaintiffs objections thereto, this Court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Falk's Report and Recommendation in full, and thus grants the Second Moving Defendant's Motions to Dismiss [ECF No. 121 without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have 30 days to re-plead his claims against all of the defendants. Because Plaintiff may amend his claim as to all of the defendants, the First Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 10] is denied as moot. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.