Jarvis v. D'Angelo et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________
HOLLY JARVIS,
Plaintiff,
5:25-CV-0648
v. 	(GTS/ML)
WILLIAM D’ANGELO; and MARPAT, LLC,
Defendants.
_________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
HOLLY JARVIS
Plaintiff, Pro Se
105 Rider Ave, #1
Syracuse, New York 13207
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Holly Jarvis
(“Plaintiff”) against William D’Angelo and Marpat, LLC (“Defendants”) are (1) United States
Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s
Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, (2) Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report-Recommendations, and (3) Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 20, 21, 22.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Lovric’s
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no error in the portions of the Report-
Recommendation to which Plaintiff has specifically objected, and no clear error in the remaining
Case 5:25-cv-00648-GTS-ML Document 24 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 3

2
portions of the Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Lovric employed the proper
standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result,
the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons stated therein.
To those reasons, the Court adds only two brief points.
First, in her Objection, Plaintiff argues that dismissal is not warranted because, liberally
construed, her original Complaint alleges facts plausibly suggesting a violation of the Fair
Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604 and 3617. (Dkt. No. 22.) The Court disagrees: even when
construed with the utmost of special leniency, the factual allegations of Plaintiff’s original
Complaint do not plausibly suggest a claim under the Fair Housing Act. (See generally Dkt. No.
1.)
Second, before it may refer Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to Magistrate Judge Lovric
for his review of its pleading sufficiency, the Court must confirm with Plaintiff that she indeed
intends to proceed on her Amended Complaint in this action. This is because, when she filed her
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff did not yet have the benefit of the Court’s Decision and Order on
Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation. Cf. Cresci v. Mohawk Valley Community
College, 693 F. App'x 21, 25 (2d Cir. June 2, 2017) (“The court's criticism of Cresci for failure to
submit a proposed amended complaint before learning whether, and in what respects, the court
would find deficiencies was unjustified, and the court's denial of leave to replead, simultaneously
with its decision that the complaint was defective, effectively deprived Cresci of a reasonable
opportunity to seek leave to amend.”). As a result, the Court will give Plaintiff a reasonable
opportunity to either (1) confirm that she indeed intends to proceed on her Amended Complaint
(Dkt. No. 22), or (2) file a revised Amended Complaint.
Case 5:25-cv-00648-GTS-ML Document 24 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 3

3
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED without
prejudice and without further Order of this Court, unless, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the
entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-
Recommendation; and it is further
ORDERED that, within the above-described 30-day time period, Plaintiff either (1) files
a letter to the Court stating that she intends to rely on her Amended Complaint filed on January
13, 2026 (Dkt. No. 22), or (2) files a revised Amended Complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff do either of the above-described two things, her
Amended Complaint shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Lovric for further review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Dated: March 24, 2026
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00648-GTS-ML Document 24 Filed 03/25/26 Page 3 of 3