Flores v. Ada James Place

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VALERIE FLORES,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADA JAMES PLACE, also known as Passages,
Defendant.
1:26-cv-00123 (AMN/ML)
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
VALERIE FLORES
P.O. Box 1110 ACP 5749
Albany, NY 12201
Plaintiff pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On January 26, 2026, plaintiff pro se Valerie Flores (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action
against defendant Ada James Place (“Defendant”), alleging violations of her rights. 	Dkt. No. 1
(“Complaint”). Plaintiff also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Dkt. No. 2, and for the
appointment of counsel, Dkt. No. 3.
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric, who, on
February 23, 2026, denied Plaintiff’s IFP application as incomplete and denied Plaintiff’s motion
seeking the appointment of counsel as inappropriate. 	Dkt. Nos. 5-6. 	After Plaintiff filed an
amended motion to proceed IFP on March 9, 2026, Magistrate Judge Lovric directed Plaintiff to
file another amended IFP form to clarify certain of her representations. Dkt. Nos. 11-12. On April
3, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a letter motion for Magistrate Judge Lovric to recuse himself from the
Case 1:26-cv-00123-AMN-ML Document 22 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 6

2
case, which Magistrate Judge Lovric denied that same day. Dkt. Nos. 13-14. On April 20, 2026,
Plaintiff filed a second amended motion to proceed IFP. Dkt. No. 15.
On September 9, 2026, Magistrate Judge Lovric granted Plaintiff’s second amended
motion to proceed IFP and reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 	Dkt. No. 17
(“Report-Recommendation”). Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended that this Court dismiss the
Complaint without leave to amend. Id. at 9.1 Magistrate Judge Lovric specifically advised that
Plaintiff 	was 	not 	to 	amend 	her 	complaint 	prior 	to 	this 	Court’s 	ruling 	on 	the 	Report-
Recommendation. Id. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Magistrate Judge Lovric also advised
that the parties had fourteen days within which to file written objections and that failure to object
to the Report-Recommendation within those fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Id.
at 10. On September 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed an untimely objection. Dkt. No. 18. 2
For the reasons that follow, 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 a party files “[g]eneral or conclusory objections, or
1 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
2 Plaintiff also styles her objection as a notice of appeal. See id.
Case 1:26-cv-00123-AMN-ML Document 22 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 6

3
objections which merely recite the same arguments [previously] presented to the magistrate
judge,” the district court also reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendations for clear error.
O’Diah v. Mawhir, No. 08-cv-322, 2011 WL 933846, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations
omitted); accord Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (a “statement,
devoid of any reference to specific findings or recommendations to which [the plaintiff] objected
and why, and unsupported by legal authority, was not sufficient to preserve” a claim); Petersen, 2
F. Supp. 3d 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).
Case 1:26-cv-00123-AMN-ML Document 22 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 6

4
III. 	DISCUSSION
After reviewing Plaintiff’s untimely objection, the Court finds that it fails to substantively
respond to the Report-Recommendation and therefore asserts no error in Magistrate Judge Lovric’s
findings or recommendations. See Dkt. No. 18 at 1. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report-
Recommendation for clear error. 	See Petersen, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 228-29; Caldwell, 2022 WL
16918287, at *1.
Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as
frivolous. Dkt. No. 17 at 4-5. After affording the Complaint a liberal reading, Magistrate Judge
Lovric noted that it “woefully lack[ed] factual allegations sufficient to plausibly suggest any cause
of action.” 	Id. at 4. 	Indeed, on the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff appears to assert a
discrimination claim but rests that assertion on the allegations that “two individuals were rude to
her over the phone” and that both individuals were named Kayla. Id. at 4-5 (citing Dkt. No. 1 at
5). Magistrate Judge Lovric found that Plaintiff’s allegations were “attenuated and fanciful” and
thus “wholly incredible ‘whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict
them.’” Id. at 5 (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)).
In the alternative, Magistrate Judge Lovric also recommended that the Court dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 	Id. at 5-7. 	Specifically,
Magistrate Judge Lovric noted that the Complaint purports to bring its claims pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (“FDCPA”), but fails to allege facts plausibly
suggesting that Plaintiff was subject to consumer debt collection, that Defendant is a debt collector,
or that Defendant engaged in any violation of the FDCPA. Id. at 5-6; see also Dkt. No. 1 at 3-5.
Additionally, to the extent that the Complaint could be construed as claiming discrimination
against Plaintiff as a member of a protected class, Magistrate Judge Lovric found that even if
Case 1:26-cv-00123-AMN-ML Document 22 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Plaintiff was a member of such a class, she failed to link that fact to any Defendant action that
could raise the possibility of discrimination. 	Id. at 6. 	Finally, to the extent that the Complaint
could be construed as raising any state law claims, Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended that the
Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. Id. at 7.
As to leave to amend, Magistrate Judge Lovric explained that a court “should not dismiss
claims contained in a complaint filed by a pro se litigant 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.’” Id. at 7-8 (quoting Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704-05 (2d Cir. 1991)). “However,
an opportunity to amend is not required . . . where ‘the problem with [the plaintiff’s] causes of
action is substantive’ such that ‘better pleading will not cure it.’” 	Id. at 7 (quoting Cuoco v.
Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)). Having found the Complaint to be frivolous and that
it failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted, Magistrate Judge Lovric further found
that better pleading could not cure its deficiencies and therefore recommended that the Court deny
leave to amend as futile. Dkt. No. 17 at 8.
After review, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Lovric’s conclusions as to
dismissal or leave to amend. 	Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its
entirety.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 17, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice and
without leave to amend; and the Court further
Case 1:26-cv-00123-AMN-ML Document 22 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:26-cv-00123-AMN-ML Document 22 Filed 10/13/26 Page 6 of 6