Paul v. Carden, Dotzler, Hammond Law, PLLC Law Firm et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
PRINELL PAUL,
Plaintiff,
5:25-CV-1199
v. 	(GTS/MJK)
CARDEN, DOTZLER, HAMMOND LAW, PLLC LAW
FIRM; CLIFFORD CARDEN, Attorney at Law;
MATTHEW DOTZLER, Attorney at Law; DAVID
HAMMOND, Attorney at Law; BRIAN TEDD, Attorney
at Law; and NICHOLAS HURTADO, Attorney at Law;
Defendants.
________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
PRINELL PAUL, 05002328
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Onondaga County Justice Center
555 South State Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Prinell Paul
(“Plaintiff”) against the law firm of Carden, Dotzler, Hammond Law, PLLC, and five of its
attorneys (“Defendants”) asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is United States Magistrate
Judge Mitchell J. Katz’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be
sua sponte dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend for failure to state a claim.
(Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the
deadline to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
Case 5:25-cv-01199-GTS-MJK Document 8 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Based upon a review of this matter, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-
Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Katz employed the proper standards, accurately recited the
facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court accepts and adopts the
Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. (Dkt. No. 7.) To those reasons, the
Court adds only two brief points.
First, although the Report-Recommendation recommends that the dismissal of Plaintiff’s
Complaint be only without prejudice, the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice to be more
appropriate for each of two alternative reasons: (1) the implausibility of any civil claim by
Plaintiff against Defendants based on the factual allegations asserted; and (2) Plaintiff’s abuse of
the litigation process in this District.
Second, Plaintiff has an extensive litigation history in this District, having filed more than
twenty pro se actions in 2025 alone. In two of those actions, the Court warned Plaintiff that his
continued abuse of the litigation process may result in an Order directing him to show cause why
he should not be enjoined from filing future pro se actions in this District without prior leave of
the District’s Chief Judge. See Paul v. Hawker, 25-CV-0132, Decision and Order, at 8-9
(N.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 9, 2025) (Suddaby, J.); Paul v. Passini, 25-CV-0030, Decision and Order,
at 11-13 (N.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 18, 2025) (Suddaby, J.). Because this action was commenced
1 	When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-
recommendation to only a clear error review. 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.” Id.;
see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995)
(Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which
no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Case 5:25-cv-01199-GTS-MJK Document 8 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
before the Court issued those two warnings, the Court will not, at this time, refer him to Chief
U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes for consideration of such an Order to Show Cause.
However, Plaintiff is again reminded that, if he continues to file frivolous actions, such a referral
shall result.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Katz’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Dated: April 7, 2026
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-01199-GTS-MJK Document 8 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 3