Jarvis v. Citizen Review Board of the City of Syracuse

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HOLLY JARVIS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	5:25-cv-01169 (AMN/PJE)
CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF SYRACUSE,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
HOLLY JARVIS
105 Rider Avenue – Apartment 1
Syracuse, New York 13207
Plaintiff pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On August 26, 2025, plaintiff pro se Holly Jarvis (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action
against defendant Citizen Review Board of the City of Syracuse (“Defendant”) in connection with
a complaint she had submitted. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff sought and received leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2.1
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista, who
reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A and, on January 30, 2026,
recommended that the Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. 	Dkt. No. 5 (“Report-
1 Citations to docket entries utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system, and not the documents’ internal pagination.
Case 5:25-cv-01169-AMN-PJE Document 6 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Recommendation”). Magistrate Judge Evangelista advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
the parties had fourteen days within which to file written objections and that failure to object to
the Report-Recommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Id. at 11. No
objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its
entirety and dismisses the Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation
that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223,
228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If no specific objections have been filed, this
Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. 	See Petersen, 2 F.
Supp. 3d at 229. “When performing such a ‘clear error’ review, ‘the court need only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”
Dezarea W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-cv-01138, 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar.
17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-0367, 2017 WL 5484663, at *1 n.1
(N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)). After 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)(C).
“[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)) (additional citations
omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to “make reasonable allowances
to protect pro se litigants” from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a
Case 5:25-cv-01169-AMN-PJE Document 6 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 4

3
legal education. Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). After 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)(C).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Because neither party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court
reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error.
Magistrate Judge Evangelista first determined that Plaintiff’s cursory factual allegations
did not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt.
No. 5 at 6-7; see also City of Pontiac Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. BNP Paribas Secs. Corp., 92 F.4th
381, 396 (2d Cir. 2024) (“[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)] is designed to permit [each]
defendant to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff is complaining about and to know
whether there is a legal basis for recovery.”) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). Magistrate
Judge Evangelista next found that Plaintiff’s allegations were also insufficient to state a claim
under Section 1983.2 Dkt. No. 5 at 7-10. Given the nature of the deficiencies in the Complaint,
and in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that she receive
leave to amend. Id. at 9-10. Magistrate Judge Evangelista also detailed the requirements for any
amended complaint. See, e.g., id. at 7-10, 9 n.9.
The Court discerns no clear error in Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s findings and
recommendations. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
2 Given the absence of a viable federal claim, the Court would also lack jurisdiction over any state
law claims against non-diverse parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Case 5:25-cv-01169-AMN-PJE Document 6 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 5, is ADOPTED in its entirety; and
the Court further
ORDERS that the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice and with
leave to amend; and the Court further
ORDERS that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing
date of this Order; and the Court further
ORDERS that, if Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, it shall be referred to
Magistrate Judge Evangelista for review; and if Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint,
the Clerk is directed to close this case without further order of this Court; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2026
Albany, New York
3 The Clerk shall also provide Plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions cited herein.
Case 5:25-cv-01169-AMN-PJE Document 6 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 4