Rinaldi v. John Doe #1-10

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
JOHN M. RINALDI,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	5:26-CV-534 (AJB/CBF)
JOHN DOE #1-10,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
JOHN M. RINALDI
Plaintiff, Pro Se
6698 Glen Haven Road
Homer, NY 13077
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On April 3, 2026, pro se plaintiff John M. Rinaldi (“plaintiff”) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging that John Doe defendants violated his First Amendment rights by, inter alia, un-
lawfully seizing his vehicle in retaliation for his protected speech. Dkt. Nos. 1, 7. Along with his
complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. Nos.
3, 12. Plaintiff also sought emergency relief in the form of a temporary restraining order, see, e.g.,
Dkt. Nos. 2, 6, filed an amended complaint1 as of right, Dkt. No. 7, and used the Court’s electronic
MFT filing system to submit additional documentation, Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16.
On May 21, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla B. Freedman granted plaintiff’s IFP Appli-
cation and, after an initial review, advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that plaintiff’s
1 Plaintiff used the Court’s MFT system to file a second copy of this pleading. Dkt. No. 16.
Case 5:26-cv-00534-AJB-CBF Document 23 Filed 06/11/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
first amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. No. 20. As Judge Freedman ex-
plained, plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege any cognizable § 1983 claims. 	Id. 	However, in
light of his pro se status, Judge Freedman suggested that plaintiff should be permitted leave to
further amend. See id. at 8.
Plaintiff has not lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 20. Upon review for clear error, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See FED. R.
C IV. P. 72(b). Plaintiff will be permitted a thirty-day opportunity to attempt to further amend. As
a final matter, the Court notes that recent mailings to plaintiff’s address on file have been returned
as undeliverable. Dkt. Nos. 17, 18, 19, 21, 22.
Plaintiff is cautioned that it is his responsibility to diligently prosecute actions that he files
in this Court. A big part of that responsibility involves following the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure and the Local Rules of Practice. Under Local Rule 10, a litigant must promptly notify the
Court of any change of address, and the failure to do so can result in sanctions, up to and including
sua sponte dismissal of the case.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 20) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Dkt. No. 7) is DISMISSED with leave to amend;
3. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to file a second amended complaint;
4. If plaintiff timely files a second amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to REFER the
file to Judge Freedman for further action as appropriate; and
5. 	If plaintiff does not timely file a second amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to
enter a judgment dismissing this action and close the file without further Order of the Court.
Case 5:26-cv-00534-AJB-CBF Document 23 Filed 06/11/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion and set a deadline ac-
cordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 5:26-cv-00534-AJB-CBF Document 23 Filed 06/11/26 Page 3 of 3