Nichols v. Favreau et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
OWEN NICHOLS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM J. FAVREAU, VIVIAN JOO,
ANDREW J. WYLIE, JAMIE A.
DOUTHAT, GEORGE GRAHAM and
ERIC KWPPILA,
Defendants.
8:25-cv-416 (BKS/ML)
Appearances:
Plaintiff Pro Se:
Owen Nichols
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff pro se Owen Nichols brings this action against Defendants Jamie A. Douthat,
William J. Favreau, George Graham, Vivian Joo, Eric Kwppila, and Andrew J. Wylie asserting
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of Plaintiff’s state court conviction. (Dkt. No. 1).
Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2, 9, 15, 20, 24, 25, 28). This matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric for an initial review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Local Rule 72.3(d). On October 29, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lovric
granted Plaintiff’s most recent motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 28), and issued a
Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims be dismissed without
Case 8:25-cv-00416-BKS-ML Document 38 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 4

2
prejudice and without leave to replead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b),
(Dkt. No. 33 at 12).
Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 35). For
the reasons that follow, the Report-Recommendation is adopted.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations 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). “A proper
objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the [Report-Recommendation] that the
objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.” Kruger v. Virgin Atl.
Airways, Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 2d 290, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted). Properly raised
objections “must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings” in the report. Molefe v.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “[E]ven a pro se party’s
objections to a Report[-]Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular
findings in the magistrate [judge]’s proposal . . . .” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ.
13320(DAB)(JCF), 2011 WL 3809920, at *2, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95351, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted). Findings and recommendations as to which there was no
properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear error. Id.
III. 	DISCUSSION
Magistrate Judge Lovric concluded that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Clinton
County Supreme Court Justice William J. Favreau, Assistant District Attorneys Vivian Joo,
Andrew Wylie, Jamie Douthat and George Graham in their individual capacities should be
dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii)
and 1915A(b)(2) based on the doctrines of judicial immunity and prosecutorial immunity. (Dkt.
Case 8:25-cv-00416-BKS-ML Document 38 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 4

3
No. 33 at 6–9).1 And Magistrate Judge Lovric found that the claims against these defendants in
their official capacity should be dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Id.).
Finally, because Defendant Kwppila, is a legal aid attorney who is not a state actor, Magistrate
Judge Lovric concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Defendant Kwppila. (Id. at 10).
While Plaintiff filed objections to the Report-Recommendation, he has not raised any
objection to these determinations; Plaintiffs objections address the alleged underlying acts
undertaken by the Defendants. (Dkt. No. 35). Because Plaintiff failed to raise any objection to
Magistrate Judge Lovric’s analysis, the Court would review the Report-Recommendation for
clear error. In any event, even under de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge
Lovric’s conclusions, and the Report-Recommendation is therefore adopted.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 33) is
ADOPTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Joo, Wylie, Douthat, Graham and
Favreau (First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action) are DISMISSED without prejudice
and without leave to replead pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and 1915A(b)(2); and
it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Kwppila (Fifth Cause of Action) is
DISMISSED without leave to replead for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1 Magistrate Judge Lovric also noted that the Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against Assistant District
Attorney Defendants Douthat and Graham, who are identified in the caption and list of defendants but as to whom no
action is attributed in the body of the Complaint. (Dkt. No. 33, at 7 n.4).
Case 8:25-cv-00416-BKS-ML Document 38 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 4

4
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2026
Syracuse, New York
Case 8:25-cv-00416-BKS-ML Document 38 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 4