McLean v. McCarthy

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
WILLIAM S. MCLEAN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	5:25-cv-01237 (AMN/MJK)
DIANE MCCARTHY,
Defendant.
________________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
WILLIAM S. MCLEAN, JR.
Federal Medical Center-Butner
P.O. Box 1600
Butner, North Carolina 27509
Plaintiff, pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On September 8, 2025, William S. McLean, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action pro se
against Diane McCarthy (“Defendant”), alleging fraud and seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”).1
On the same day that he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), see Dkt. No. 2, which the Court initially denied as incomplete, see Dkt. No. 3.
Plaintiff filed a second motion to proceed IFP on September 30, 2025. See Dkt. No. 4. This matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz, who granted Plaintiff’s second
request to proceed IFP. 	Dkt. No. 8 at 9 (“Report-Recommendation”). 	Magistrate Judge Katz
1 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
Case 5:25-cv-01237-AMN-MJK Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 5

2
reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and on October 16, 2025, recommended
that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claim without leave to amend for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Id. Magistrate Judge Katz also 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. No objections
have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired.
For the reasons that follow, 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 228 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition). 	“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., 21-cv-01138, 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 17-cv-0367, 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,
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)). After appropriate
Case 5:25-cv-01237-AMN-MJK Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 5

3
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 Katz recommended that this Court dismiss the Complaint without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 8 at 5; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3)
(“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss
the action.”). Magistrate Judge Katz construed the Complaint as alleging either common law fraud
or a probate claim, both brought under federal diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 8 at 3, 5-7.2 Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $13,306.00—well short of the $75,000.00 amount-
in-controversy requirement. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff also seeks $136,694.00 in punitive damages
to bring his total damages sought to $150,000.00—above the requirement. Id.
Keeping in mind that courts “customarily interpret a plaintiff’s allegations of damages as
sufficient to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement,” Magistrate Judge Katz nevertheless
recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claim because “it is a legal certainty that the
plaintiff cannot recover the damages he seeks.” Dkt. No. 8 at 5-6 (quoting Nwanza v. Time, Inc.,
125 F. App’x 346, 348 (2d Cir. 2005) (summary order). Magistrate Judge Katz found that when
construed as a claim for fraud, the Complaint does not state facts sufficient to seek punitive
damages because the alleged fraud was only aimed at Plaintiff and not aimed at the public
generally, thereby leaving the amount-in-controversy below the requirement and outside federal
2 Magistrate Judge Katz noted that Plaintiff also claimed to bring this action under Federal
Question jurisdiction but did not plead a federal question. Dkt. No. 8 at 3 n. 1.
Case 5:25-cv-01237-AMN-MJK Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 5

4
diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 8 at 6; see Dkt. No. 1 at 4-5; see, e.g., Carling v. Peters, 10-cv-
4573, 2013 WL 865822, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2013) (holding that punitive damages for fraud
are recoverable only where the fraud is “aimed at the public generally” and is “gross and involves
high moral culpability” (citations omitted)). 	Magistrate Judge Katz also found that when
alternatively construed as a probate claim, the Complaint falls within the first prong of the probate
exception to subject matter jurisdiction because it seeks the administration of a will. Dkt. No. 8 at
7-8; see Dkt. No. 1 at 4-5. Thus, even if the Complaint satisfied the diversity of citizenship and
amount-in-controversy requirements, this “purely probate matter” is excepted from the scope of
federal diversity jurisdiction. 	Id.; see Cadwell v. Citibank, N.A., No. 23-CV-1315, 2023 WL
9492396, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2023); Lefkowitz v. Bank of N.Y., 528 F.3d 102, 106 (2d Cir.
2007); see also Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946) (“[A] federal court has no jurisdiction
to probate a will or administer an estate[.]”).
Second, Magistrate Judge Katz recommended that Plaintiff should not be given leave to
amend his Complaint because any amendment would be futile. Dkt. No. 8 at 8-9. Magistrate Katz
found that no amendment would change this Court’s inability to hear probate claims, the specific
amount of money to which Plaintiff is entitled, or Plaintiff’s legal inability to seek punitive
damages for this alleged case of fraud. Id.
After reviewing the Report-Recommendation and considering Magistrate Judge Katz’s
findings as to Plaintiff’s liberally construed claim, the Court finds no clear error in the Report-
Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
Case 5:25-cv-01237-AMN-MJK Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 5

5
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 8, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant be DISMISSED without prejudice
and without leave to amend; 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: November 10, 2025
Albany, New York
Case 5:25-cv-01237-AMN-MJK Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 5