Barbosa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

________________________________________________

RYAN BARBOSA,

Plaintiff,

v. 8:25-cv-01516 (AMN/TWD)

STEFAN ANDREWS,

Defendant.

________________________________________________

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

RYAN BARBOSA, III

15224

Jefferson County Correctional Facility

753 Waterman Drive

Watertown, NY 13601

Plaintiff pro se

Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 8, 2025, Ryan Barbosa (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action pro se against

Stefan Andrews (“Defendant”) alleging injuries related to an incident occurring on October 3,

2024. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”).1 On the same day, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkt. No. 2.

This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, who

granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP and reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. Dkt. No. 6 at 2 (“Report-Recommendation”). On December 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge

1 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic

filing system.

Dancks recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claim without prejudice for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. Id. at 7. Magistrate Judge Dancks further recommended that the Court grant

Plaintiff leave to amend. Id. at 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Magistrate Judge Dancks

advised that the parties had fourteen days within which to file written objections and that failure

object to the Report-Recommendation within those fourteen days would preclude appellate review.

Id. at 9. No party has filed objections, and the time for filing objections has expired.

For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation

that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223,

228 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If no specific objections have been filed, this

Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen, 2 F. Supp.

3d at 229 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition). Similarly, if

an objection simply rehashes arguments originally presented to the magistrate judge, this Court

reviews the relevant portions of the report-recommendation for clear error. See id. at 228-29 &

n.6 (collecting cases). “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.’”

Dezarea W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-cv-1138, 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17,

2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-367, 2017 WL 5484663, at *1 n.1

(N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)).

“[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. 2003) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (additional citations

omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to “make reasonable allowances

to protect pro se litigants” from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a

legal education. Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). That said, “even a

pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at

particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal[.]” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-cv-13320, 2011

WL 3809920, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No.

22-cv-567, 2022 WL 16918287, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). After 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)(C).

III. DISCUSSION

Because no party has filed any objection to the Report-Recommendation, the Court reviews

the Report-Recommendation for clear error.

Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 6 at 5-8. A federal court has jurisdiction over a

matter only when it presents a “federal question,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where there is “diversity

of citizenship” and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Perpetual

Sec., Inc. v. Tang, 290 F.3d 132, 136 (2d Cir. 2002). Because Plaintiff filed this action using the

Court’s form complaint for violations of civil rights, see Dkt. No. 1, Magistrate Judge Dancks

considered whether Plaintiff adequately alleged a federal question claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983, Dkt. No. 6 at 5. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the challenged

conduct (1) was “committed by a person acting under color of state law,” and (2) “deprived [the

plaintiff] of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States.” Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Pitchell v. Callan, 13 F.3d 545,

547 (2d Cir. 1994)). Magistrate Judge Dancks found that Plaintiff had not alleged any deprivation

of rights secured by the Constitution or by federal law and that Plaintiff had not alleged facts

plausibly showing that Defendant was a state actor or private party acting under the color of state

law.2 Dkt. No. 6 at 6. Therefore, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s claims.

Magistrate Judge Dancks also found that Plaintiff had not adequately alleged a basis for

diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 6. To establish diversity jurisdiction, diversity between all plaintiffs

and all defendants must be complete. See Cushing v. Moore, 970 F.2d 1103, 1106 (2d Cir. 1992).

This Circuit maintains a rebuttable presumption that an incarcerated plaintiff retains his pre-

incarceration domicile. See Blumatte v. Quinn, 521 F. Supp. 2d 308, 312 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

Magistrate Judge Dancks was unable to determine whether Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of

different states because, while Plaintiff states that Defendant is domiciled in New York and

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in New York, Plaintiff did not identify the state of his pre-

incarceration domicile. Dkt. No. 6 at 7. Therefore, because Plaintiff did not allege that he and

Defendant are citizens of different states, complete diversity is lacking. Id. at 6. Additionally,

Magistrate Judge Dancks found that Plaintiff did not allege facts supporting an amount-in-

controversy exceeding the required sum of $75,000. Id. at 7.

In accordance with her recommendation to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice. Id. at

8; see Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47, 54-55 (2d Cir. 2016) (noting that dismissal

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice because “without jurisdiction, the

2 Construing the Complaint liberally, Magistrate Judge Dancks noted that Plaintiff may be alleging

state law claims for assault and battery, in which case such claims would likely be time-barred.

Dkt. No. 6 at 6 n. 4; see N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 215.

district court lacks the power to adjudicate the merits of the case”). Given Plaintiff’s pro se status,

Magistrate Judge Danks also recommended granting Plaintiff leave to amend. Dkt. No. 6 at 8.

After reviewing the Report-Recommendation and considering Magistrate Judge Dancks’

findings, the Court finds no clear error in the Report-Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court

adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court hereby

ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 6, is ADOPTED in its entirety;

and the Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice and

with leave to amend; and the Court further

ORDERS that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing

date of this Order; and the Court further

ORDERS that, if Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, it shall be referred to

Magistrate Judge Dancks for review; and if Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint, the

Clerk is directed to close this case without further order of this Court; and the Court further

ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the

Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2026

Albany, New York