Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Debrosse v. City of New York, 13-CV-03822 (AMD)(CLP). (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York Number: infdco20160706d92 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 2016
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER ANN M. DONNELLY , District Judge . Donald Debrosse commenced this civil rights action on July 9, 2013 alleging malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial, and abuse of process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants City of New York, Detective Michael Gaynor, Detective David Arvelo, Detective Lorraine Winters, Police Officer Pablo DeJesus, Detective Andrew Mennella, Detective Robert Aiello, and Detective Claude Jeanpierre, and Police Officers John/Jane Does 1-
More

DECISION AND ORDER

Donald Debrosse commenced this civil rights action on July 9, 2013 alleging malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial, and abuse of process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants City of New York, Detective Michael Gaynor, Detective David Arvelo, Detective Lorraine Winters, Police Officer Pablo DeJesus, Detective Andrew Mennella, Detective Robert Aiello, and Detective Claude Jeanpierre, and Police Officers John/Jane Does 1-10. Debrosse filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2013, and then moved to file a second amended complaint on December 21, 2015. In a Report and Recommendation issued on May 25, 2016, Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak recommended that the Court deny the plaintiffs motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF 65.) No party has objected to Judge Pollak's Report and Recommendation within the time prescribed by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

In reviewing an R & R, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 63 (b)(1)(C). Where, as here, no party has objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation, "a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Urena v. New York, 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).

This court has reviewed Judge Pollak's thorough and well-reasoned opinion, and finds no error. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to file a second Amended Complaint (ECF 57) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer