Conniff v. Burton et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RAYMOND E. CONNIFF, III,
Plaintiff,
v. 	1:25-cv-00848 (AMN/TWD)
MICHAEL BURTON and ST. MARY’S
HOSPITAL,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
RAYMOND E. CONNIFF, III
I.D. No.: 913582
Montgomery County Jail
P.O. Box 432
Fultonville, New York 12072
Plaintiff pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff pro se Raymond E. Conniff, III, commenced this action against
St. Mary’s Hospital and Michael Burton, a security guard at St. Mary’s Hospital, asserting various
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) in connection with his arrest upon discharge from
St. Mary’s Hospital. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and sought
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkt. Nos. 9, 11, 13.
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, who
reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and on October 29, 2025, granted
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP and recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be
Case 1:25-cv-00848-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 6

2
dismissed with leave to amend. 	See Dkt. No. 15 at 12-13 (“Report-Recommendation”).1
Magistrate Judge Dancks 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 13. 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.
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 (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
*1 (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)).
1 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
Case 1:25-cv-00848-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 6

3
“[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. 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. Id. (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).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Because neither party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court
reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error.
First, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for
failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 15 at
7-9. 	Rule 8 requires a pleading to contain, inter alia, “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and Rule 10 requires parties to state their claims or
defenses in numbered paragraphs, “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,”
to promote clarity. Id. at 7-8 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (10)). Here, Magistrate Judge Dancks
found that Plaintiff’s Complaint is difficult to understand because of these deficiencies. Id. at 9
(citing Griffith v. New York State, No. 23-cv-1266, 2024 WL 1641587, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 20,
Case 1:25-cv-00848-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 6

4
2024) (recommending dismissal of complaint for failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim or claims were
“entirely unclear”), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1639856 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 16,
2024)).
Second, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims be
dismissed because Plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that Defendants, a private individual and a
private hospital, were acting under the color of state law. See Dkt. No. 15 at 9-10 (citing, inter
alia, White v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., 369 F. App’x 225, 226 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[P]rivate actors and
institutions, such as . . . hospitals . . . are generally not proper § 1983 defendants because they do
not act under color of state law.”) (citation omitted)); Guillory v. Benedict, No. 21-cv-73, 2021
WL 707076, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2021) (recommending dismissal of plaintiff's Section 1983
claims against St. Joseph’s Hospital, a private hospital), report and recommendation adopted,
2021 WL 706644 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2021)). 	Even if Plaintiff could somehow show that
Defendants were acting under the color of state law, Magistrate Judge Dancks found that Plaintiff’s
Section 1983 claims should still be dismissed because Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory, and
thus insufficient to state a claim for deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Dkt. No.
15 at 10 (citing Alfaro Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 814 F.2d 883, 887 (2d Cir. 1987) (“[A]llegations
which are nothing more than broad, simple, and conclusory statements are insufficient to state a
claim under § 1983.”) (citations omitted)).
Third, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts claims under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that such claims
be dismissed with prejudice because there is no private right of action to enforce HIPAA. See Dkt.
No. 15 at 10-11 (citing, inter alia, Warren Pearl Constr. Corp. v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
Case 1:25-cv-00848-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 11/24/25 Page 4 of 6

5
639 F. Supp. 2d 371, 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (collecting cases)); see also Meadows v. United Servs.,
Inc., 963 F.3d 240, 244 (2d Cir. 2020) (concluding that HIPAA confers no express or implied
private cause of action).
Fourth, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts any state law claims, Magistrate Judge Dancks
recommended that this Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. See
Dkt. No. 15 at 11. 	Magistrate Judge Dancks explained that “[a] district court may decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it ‘has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).
Lastly, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that Plaintiff be granted an opportunity to
amend his Complaint to comply with the pleading requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and to state a valid claim for relief. See id. at 12 (citing Matima v. Celli, 228 F.3d
68, 81 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. 1991) (noting that
courts should not dismiss a pro se complaint “without granting leave to amend at least once when
a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated”).
Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation and considered Magistrate Judge Dancks’
findings as to each claim, 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
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 15, 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; and the Court further
Case 1:25-cv-00848-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 11/24/25 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 24, 2025
Albany, New York
Case 1:25-cv-00848-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 11/24/25 Page 6 of 6