Richardson v. Enforcement Agency (DEA) et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
MAURICE RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	1:25-CV-774 (AJB/ML)
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (DEA) et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
MAURICE RICHARDSON
Plaintiff, Pro Se
04429-015
Allenwood Low FCI
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 1000
White Deer, PA 17887
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On June 16, 2025, pro se plaintiff Maurice Richardson (“plaintiff”), an individual in the
custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, filed this civil action alleging that defendants violated his
constitutional rights in connection with their execution of a search warrant at his residence. Dkt.
Nos. 1, 7. Along with his complaint, plaintiff also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP Application”). Dkt. Nos. 3, 4, 15.
On December 30, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric granted plaintiff’s IFP
Application and, after conducting an initial review of plaintiff’s pleading, advised by Report &
Recommendation (“R&R”) that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with partial leave to amend as
to his claims against John Doe 9 and Jane Doe 10 and, if warranted, claims against the City of
Case 1:25-cv-00774-AJB-ML Document 18 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
Cohoes. Dkt. No. 16 at 19–20 & n. 9. As Judge Lovric explained, plaintiff’s pleading suggested
that he might be able to plead a more detailed set of non-conclusory factual allegations sufficient
to establish one or more 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against one or more of these defendants.
Plaintiff has not lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired.
See Dkt. No. 16. Upon review for clear error, Judge Lovric’s R&R is accepted and will be
adopted. See FED. R. C IV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is ACCEPTED; and
2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 7) is DISMISSED with partial leave to amend as set
forth in Judge Lovric’s R&R;
3. Plaintiff shall have THIRTY DAYS from the date of this decision in which to submit
an amended complaint for review;
4. If plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, this action will be REFERRED to
Judge Lovric for further review and action as appropriate; and
5. If plaintiff does not timely file an amended complaint, this action will be DISMISSED
without further Order of the Court.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion and set the appropriate
deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 1:25-cv-00774-AJB-ML Document 18 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 2