Sherwood v. Mazzarella et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 6:25-cv-01825-AMN-DJS Document12- Filed 05/05/26 Pageiof5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

TADD A. SHERWOOD,
Plaintiff,

v. 6:25-cv-01825 (AMN/DJS)

DANIEL P. MAZZARELLA, et al.,

Defendants.

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:
TADD A. SHERWOOD

510 Main Street

Oneonta, New York 13820

Plaintiff pro se

Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:

ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION

On December 29, 2025, Plaintiff pro se Tadd A. Sherwood commenced this action and
asserted violations of his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (“Section 1983”) against numerous members of the New York State Police. See Dkt. No.
1 (‘Complaint’). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). See Dkt. Nos. 2, 6.

This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart, who reviewed
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and on April 7, 2026, granted Plaintiff's motion
for leave to proceed IFP, see Dkt. No. 10, and recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint (1) be

dismissed with leave to amend as to Defendants Skinner, Hicks, Parslow, Marshall, Greenman,

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 6:25-cv-01825-AMN-DJS Document12- Filed 05/05/26 Page 2of5

Burkert, Brown, Marinelli, Gombosi, Bajrektarevic, Casale, and Asbach, and (11) proceed as to the
remaining Defendants. See Dkt. No. 11 at 4-5 (“Report-Recommendation”).! Magistrate Judge
Stewart 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 6. No party has filed objections, and the time for
filing objections has expired.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its
entirety.
Il. 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 (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 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition).
Similarly, if an objection simply rehashes arguments originally presented to the magistrate judge,
this Court reviews the relevant portions of the report-recommendation for clear error. See id. at
228-29 & n.6 (collecting cases). “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-1138, 2023 WL 2552452, at
*] (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm ’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-367, 2017 WL

5484663, at *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)).

' Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.

Case 6:25-cv-01825-AMN-DJS Document12- Filed 05/05/26 Page 3of5

“II|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. 2003) (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
legal education. Jd. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). That said, “even a
pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at
particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal|[.]” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-cv-13320, 2011
WL 3809920, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No.
22-cv-567, 2022 WL 16918287, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). 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).
Il. DISCUSSION

Because neither party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court
reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error.

Plaintiff alleges various encounters with members of the New York State Police between
2022 and 2025, several of which resulted in his arrest. See generally Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that he was unlawfully stopped, searched, and subsequently questioned, and
that a private citizen was enlisted to obtain evidence against him. See generally id.

Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as to
twelve of the Defendants for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Dkt. No. 11 at 3-5. Rule 8 requires a pleading to contain, inter alia, “a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Jd. at 4 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)).

Case 6:25-cv-01825-AMN-DJS Document12- Filed 05/05/26 Page4of5

Here, Magistrate Judge Stewart found that the Complaint should be dismissed as to Defendants
Skinner, Hicks, Parslow, Marshall, Greenman, Burkert, Brown, Marinelli, Gombosi,
Bajrektarevic, Casale, and Asbach because Plaintiff makes no specific factual allegations against
any of them in the Complaint. /d. at 4 (citing, inter alia, Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162
F.R.D. 15, 16 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (finding dismissal appropriate where the pleading “does not
provide an adequate description of the particular acts by the defendant which led to this suit or an
explanation of how such acts were illegal’’)). Magistrate Judge Stewart further recommended that
Plaintiff be granted an opportunity to amend his Complaint to state a valid claim for relief with
respect to such Defendants. See id. at 4-5 (citing Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir.
1991) (noting that courts should not dismiss a pro se complaint without first granting leave to
amend “‘when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be
stated’’)).

Additionally, Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended that Plaintiff's claims against the
remaining Defendants proceed, finding that the Complaint “contains sufficient allegations to
warrant a responsive pleading from the remaining Defendants.” Jd. at 5 (citing, inter alia,
Hardaway v. Hartford Pub. Works Dep’t, 879 F.3d 486, 489 (2d Cir. 2018) (noting that this Court
should “afford a pro se litigant ‘special solicitude’ by interpreting a complaint filed pro se ‘to raise
the strongest claims that it suggests’” (quoting Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011))).

Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation and considered Magistrate Judge Stewart’s
findings, the Court finds no clear error in the Report-Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court
adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court hereby

Case 6:25-cv-01825-AMN-DJS Document12- Filed 05/05/26 Page5of5

ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 11, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice and
with leave to amend as to Defendants Skinner, Hicks, Parslow, Marshall, Greenman,
Burkert, Brown, Marinelli, Gombosi, Bajrektarevic, Casale, and Asbach, and proceed as to
the remaining Defendants; and the Court further

ORDERS that any Amended Complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date
of this Order; and the Court further

ORDERS that if Plaintiff timely files an Amended Complaint, the Amended Complaint is
referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for further review; and the Court further

ORDERS that if Plaintiff fails to timely file an Amended Complaint, the matter is referred
to Magistrate Judge Stewart for any orders relating to service of the surviving claims against the
remaining Defendants; and the Court further

ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the

Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 5, 2026 Ole, Nar WARE
Albany, New York Anne M. Nardacci

U.S. District Judge