Johnson v. Vera House
5:22-cv-00451
N.D.N.Y.Jun 21, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Robert W. Johnson filed 19 related civil-rights actions in the Northern District of New York against various defendants.
- Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks issued a Report-Recommendation (R&R) recommending sua sponte dismissal of all 19 actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and recommended no leave to amend.
- Johnson filed objections to the R&R, but they were not specific as required to trigger de novo review.
- The district court reviewed the filings, noted the rule that specific objections receive de novo review while nonspecific objections receive only clear-error review, and afforded Johnson the special leniency due to his pro se status.
- The court found no clear error, accepted and adopted the R&R, and ordered all 19 actions dismissed with prejudice and without prior leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the R&R recommending sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) should be rejected | General objections to the R&R (not specific) | R&R recommends dismissal for failure to state a claim and other § 1915(e)(2)(B) grounds | R&R adopted; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff's objections were specific enough to trigger de novo review | Objections asserted but lacked particularized challenges to findings | Objections are nonspecific; therefore only clear-error review applies | Court applied clear-error review and found no clear error |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice and without leave to amend | Plaintiff sought relief via objections but did not provide particulars or proposed amendments | Magistrate recommended dismissal without leave to amend based on the pleadings and § 1915(e)(2)(B) analysis | Court adopted recommendation: dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend |
| Whether pro se status required leniency that would prevent dismissal | Requests leniency and consideration of pro se status | Court acknowledges pro se leniency but notes objections must still be specific | Court applied leniency but ruled objections insufficient; dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Mario v. P&C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) (objections to a magistrate judge's report must be specific to preserve issues for de novo review)