Jarvis v. Petricola et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HOLLY JARVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER PETRICOLA, et al.,
Defendants.
5:25-cv-1166
(ECC/DJS)
Holly Jarvis., Plaintiff, pro se
Hon. Elizabeth C. Coombe, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Holly Jarvis commenced this proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 	Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. 	This matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart who, on September 4, 2025 granted Plaintiff’s application to
proceed IFP and issued a Report-Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be
dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. 	Dkt. Nos. 5, 6. 	On September 15, 2026,
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report-Recommendation and an amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 7,
8. On October 30, 2025, this Court issued a text order finding that Plaintiff’s amended complaint
was filed as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and referred the amended complaint
to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart for review. Dkt. No. 10.
On December 5, 2025, Judge Stewart issued a Report-Recommendation, recommending
that Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed. Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff was informed that she had
fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review.
Case 5:25-cv-01166-ECC-DJS Document 12 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Dkt. No. 11, at 9. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed.
As no objection to the Report-Recommendation has been filed, and the time for filing
objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. 	See
Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee’s note to 1983 amendment.
Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court
adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety, with one clarification: Plaintiff may file an
amended 	complaint 	articulating 	her 	First 	Amendment 	retaliation 	claim, 	her 	Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection claim, and her claim for “Supervisory Liability” within 30 days of
this order.
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is
ADOPTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Dkt. No. 8, is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and it is further;
ORDERED that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date
of this Order. Any amended complaint must be a complete pleading which will replace the current
complaint in total; and it is further
ORDERED that if Plaintiff files a timely amended complaint, it shall be referred to
Magistrate Judge Stewart for review; and if Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint, the
Clerk is directed to 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.
Case 5:25-cv-01166-ECC-DJS Document 12 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 15, 2026
Case 5:25-cv-01166-ECC-DJS Document 12 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 3