Flores v. Carry on Trailer et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VALERIE FLORES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARRY ON TRAILER, FLEET FARM,
Defendants.
1:25-cv-01731 (AMN/PJE)
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
VALERIE FLORES
P.O. Box 1110 ACP 5749
Albany, NY 12201
Plaintiff pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On December 10, 2025, plaintiff pro se Valerie Flores (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action
against defendants Carry-On Trailer and Fleet Farm (“Defendants”), alleging harm arising from a
defective cargo trailer. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 2. On January 21, 2026, Defendant Carry-On Trailer filed a
motion to dismiss this matter. Dkt. No. 6.
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista, who
granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP and reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. 	Dkt. No. 12 at 1 (“Report-Recommendation”). 1 	On April 30, 2026, Magistrate Judge
1 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
Case 1:25-cv-01731-AMN-PJE Document 13 Filed 05/22/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Evangelista recommended that this Court dismiss the Complaint without leave to amend for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. 	Id. at 5-8. 	Magistrate Judge Evangelista also accordingly
recommended that Defendant Carry-On Trailer’s motion be dismissed as moot. Id. at 10. Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Magistrate Judge Evangelista advised that the parties had fourteen days
within which to file written objections and that failure object to the Report-Recommendation
within those fourteen days would preclude appellate review. 	Id. at 11. 	No party has filed
objections, and the time for filing objections has expired.
For the following reasons, 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)).
“[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,
Case 1:25-cv-01731-AMN-PJE Document 13 Filed 05/22/26 Page 2 of 5

3
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 no party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court
reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error.
Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 12 at 5-8. 	A federal court has jurisdiction
over a matter only when it presents a “federal question,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where there is
“diversity of citizenship” and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See
Perpetual Sec., Inc. v. Tang, 290 F.3d 132, 136 (2d Cir. 2002). As to federal question jurisdiction,
Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that Plaintiff had not raised any federal question. 	Id. at 7.
Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s claim under “Consumer Law” at most invoked a state-law
contract dispute. Id. (citing N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-314(1)). And, as to diversity jurisdiction, Magistrate
Judge Evangelista found that while the Complaint adequately alleged complete diversity of
citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants, Plaintiff’s requested relief—for damages amounting
Case 1:25-cv-01731-AMN-PJE Document 13 Filed 05/22/26 Page 3 of 5

4
to a “$300.00 towing fee, six-to-eight tires, a trailer lock, a $400.00 repair fee, and ‘the trailer bill
of sale difference,’ alleged to be $5,300.00”—fell well short the $75,000 amount-in-controversy
threshold. Dkt. No. 12 at 6-7 (citing Dkt. No. 1 at 4).
Magistrate Judge Evangelista also recommended that the Court dismiss the Complaint
without leave to amend. Id. at 7-8. Although a pro se plaintiff is generally afforded at least one
opportunity to amend where there is any indication that he or she might state a viable claim, the
opportunity to replead should be denied where the problems with the complaint are “substantive
rather than the result of an inadequately or inartfully pleaded complaint.” Gerken v. Gordon, 1:24-
CV-435, 2024 WL 4608307, at *15 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2024) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). Here, Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that, liberally construed, the Complaint
demonstrated “no plausible basis to conclude that [P]laintiff would be able to establish this Court’s
jurisdiction through amendment.” 	Dkt. No. 12 at 8. 	Therefore, Magistrate Judge Evangelista
concluded that the opportunity to replead should be denied.
Finally, Magistrate Judge Evangelista noted that the Northern District of New York is not
the proper venue for Plaintiff’s claim because the events alleged in the Complaint lack any
connection to the district outside of Plaintiff’s own domicile. Id. at 8-10. And because Magistrate
Judge Evangelista recommended dismissing the Complaint for lack for subject matter jurisdiction
without leave to amend, he also recommended that the Court dismiss Defendant Carry-On Trailer’s
premature motion to dismiss as moot. Id. at 10.
After 	reviewing 	the 	Report-Recommendation 	and 	considering 	Magistrate 	Judge
Evangelista’s 	findings, 	the 	Court 	finds 	no 	clear 	error 	in 	the 	Report-Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Case 1:25-cv-01731-AMN-PJE Document 13 Filed 05/22/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 12, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice and
without leave to amend; and the Court further
ORDERS 	that 	Defendant 	Carry-On 	Trailer’s 	motion 	to 	dismiss, 	Dkt. 	No. 	6, 	be
DISMISSED as moot; 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 22, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:25-cv-01731-AMN-PJE Document 13 Filed 05/22/26 Page 5 of 5