Webley v. TJ Maxx et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER G. WEBLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	1:25-cv-01424
(MAD/DJS)
TJ MAXX and HEATHER TIFFANI,
Defendant.
____________________________________________
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
Plaintiff Christopher G. Webley commenced this action on October 14, 2025, bringing
claims for "negligence, discrimination, harassment, false imprisonment, emotional distress,
physical abuse, defamation, and cyber bully [sic]" against Defendants TJ Maxx and Heather
Tiffani. See Dkt. No. 1 at 1-3. On November 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart
granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Dkt. No. 5. And, on the same day,
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Report-Recommendation and Order, recommending that this
Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 6.
Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation and Order. When a
party declines to file an objection, the Court reviews a recommendation for clear error. See
O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322, 2011 WL 933846, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations
and footnote omitted); see also McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
After the appropriate review, "the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because
Case 1:25-cv-01424-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Plaintiff has not filed an objection, the Court will review the Report-Recommendation and Order
for clear error.
"[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than
that accorded to 'formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289,
295 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (other citations
omitted). The Second Circuit has stated that the court is obligated to "make reasonable
allowances to protect pro se litigants" from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely "because
of their lack of legal training." Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)).
Here, the Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-
Recommendation and Order. Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards,
accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. See Dkt. No. 6 at 2-6.
Indeed, as discussed in the Report-Recommendation and Order, Plaintiff has failed to establish
subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at 3-6. The complaint does not identify any federal statutory
or constitutional rights violations necessary to confer federal question jurisdiction. See Dkt. No.
1. And the complaint fails to establish diversity jurisdiction because it alleges that both Plaintiff
and Defendants are citizens of New York. See id. at 1-2.
The Court also finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Stewart's recommendation that
Plaintiff be permitted an opportunity to amend. See id. at 5-6. If Plaintiff files an amended
complaint, it must be a wholly-integrated and complete pleading that does not rely upon or
incorporate by reference any pleading or document previously filed with the Court. See Jeanty v.
Sciortino, 669 F. Supp. 3d 96, 118-19 (N.D.N.Y. 2023).
After carefully reviewing the Report-Recommendation and Order, the entire record in this
matter, and the applicable law, the Court hereby
Case 1:25-cv-01424-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No.
6) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE and WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, if any, within thirty (30) days of
the date of this Order; and the Court further
ORDERS that if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the
date of this Order, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment against
Plaintiff and close this case without further order from this Court; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:25-cv-01424-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3