Jarvis v. Knapp et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
HOLLY JARVIS,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	5:25-CV-1167
(MAD/MJK)
OFFICER KNAPP, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
HOLLY JARVIS
105 Rider Ave #1
Syracuse, New York 13207
Plaintiff, Pro se
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
On August 26, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Holly Jarvis commenced this action against
Defendants Officer Knapp, Officer John Doe, and City of Syracuse Police Department
(collectively, "Defendants"), bringing claims for alleged violations of her constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. No. 1. Specifically, Plaintiff brings claims for illegal
search, illegal seizure, and excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, retaliation for
protected speech in violation of the First Amendment, and seeks to hold the City of Syracuse
Police Department liable pursuant to Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). See id.
On October 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz issued a Report-Recommendation
and Order ("R&R"), recommending that (1) Plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice and
with leave to amend; and (2) the City of Syracuse Police Department be dismissed as a Defendant
Case 5:25-cv-01167-MAD-MJK Document 11 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 5

2
to this action. Dkt. No. 8 at 16-17. On November 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R.
See Dkt. No. 10. Additionally, on November 4, 2024, Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint as
of right pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 9.1
When a party files specific objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the
district court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However,
when a party files "[g]eneral or conclusory objections or objections which merely recite the same
arguments [that he presented] to the magistrate judge," the court reviews those recommendations
for clear error. O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322, 2011 WL 933846, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16,
2011) (citations and footnote omitted). After the 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).
"[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. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (other citations
omitted). The Court is obligated to "make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants from
inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of legal training." Id. (quoting
Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)).
In general, a court should not dismiss a pro se litigant's 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." Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176, 183 (2d Cir. 2009) (quotations
1 The amended complaint alters Plaintiff's factual allegations slightly, replaces Defendant Officer
Doe with Officer Matthewson, and names the City of Syracuse, instead of the City of Syracuse
Police Department, as a Defendant.
Case 5:25-cv-01167-MAD-MJK Document 11 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 5

3
and citation omitted). In addition, the court should exercise "extreme caution . . . in ordering sua
sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint before the adverse party has been served and both parties
(but particularly the plaintiff) have had the opportunity to respond." Anderson v. Coughlin, 700
F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir. 1983). An opportunity to amend, however, is not required where "the
problem with plaintiff's cause of action is substantive such that better pleading will not cure it."
Townsend v. Pep Boys, Manny Moe and Jack, No. 1:13-CV-293, 2014 WL 4826681, *2
(N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2014) (quoting Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000))
(internal quotations marks omitted).
The Court finds that the R&R is subject to clear error review because Plaintiff's objections
are general and conclusory. See Dkt. No. 10 at 1-2. Indeed, Plaintiff merely states that this Court
should reject or modify the R&R because she has sufficiently established claims for violation of
her First and Fourth Amendment rights based on the allegations in the complaint. See id.
Accordingly, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Brown v. Peters, No. 95-CV-1641,
1997 WL 599355, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997), aff'd, 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Even
affording the objections the liberal reading required for pro se pleadings, I find that these
objections fail to state any basis whatsoever, much less a specific one, for the court not to adopt
the magistrate judge's rulings. They simply re-state the relief sought and the facts on which [the
plaintiff] grounds his complaint and conclude that the magistrate judge's conclusions are wrong.
When the parties make only frivolous, conclusive, or general objections, the court reviews the
report-recommendation for clear error") (collecting cases).2
2 To the extent Plaintiff asserts new facts in her objections that were not pleaded in her
complaint, such facts were not presented to Magistrate Judge Katz and thus do not compel the
Court to conduct a de novo review of the R&R. See Syfert v. City of Rome, No. 6:17-CV-0578,
2017 WL 5195230, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2017) ("[A] district court will ordinarily refuse to
consider evidentiary material that could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge
Case 5:25-cv-01167-MAD-MJK Document 11 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 5

4
After carefully reviewing the entire record and the relevant filings, the Court discerns no
clear error in Magistrate Judge Katz's R&R. Magistrate Judge Katz employed the proper
standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. Accordingly,
the R&R is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein. To those reasons,
the Court adds the following analysis.
The amended complaint appears to be an attempt to correct the deficiencies in the
complaint identified by Judge Katz—Plaintiff was entitled to file an amended complaint one time
without the opposing parties' written consent or the Court's leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
"It is well established that an amended complaint ordinarily supersedes the original, and renders it
of no legal effect." Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F.3d 1124, 1128 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting
Int'l Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir. 1977)). However, the amended
complaint must be reviewed to determine whether Plaintiff has corrected the pleading defects
identified by Magistrate Judge Katz (and/or if the amended complaint asserts new claims plagued
by other pleading defects). Accordingly, the Court will recommit the matter to Judge Katz so he
can analyze the claims in the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
IV. CONCLUSION
After carefully considering the R&R, the entire record in this matter, and the applicable
law, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Katz's R&R (Dkt. No. 8) is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
in the first instance") (citing Paddington Partners v. Bouchard, 34 F.3d 1132, 1137-38 (2d Cir.
1994); Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 894 F.2d 36, 40, n.3 (2d Cir.
1990)).
Case 5:25-cv-01167-MAD-MJK Document 11 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 5

5
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE the City of Syracuse Police
Department as a party to this action; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 9) is deemed the operative
pleading in this action; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 9) is referred to Magistrate Judge
Katz for his review of its pleading sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); and the Court
further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2025
Albany, New York
Case 5:25-cv-01167-MAD-MJK Document 11 Filed 12/09/25 Page 5 of 5