# Barbosa

> District Court, N.D. New York · January 23, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11245857

## Case

- **Full name:** Ryan Barbosa v. Stefan Andrews
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. New York
- **Decided:** January 23, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11245857

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11245857. Public record. Not legal advice.