Flores v. Hoye et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VALERIE FLORES,
Plaintiff,
v.
TYRONE HOYE, CENTORIAN HOYE, 1
MICHAEL HOYE, JAMAL WHEATON,
DEREK; DARRYL FRANKLIN, JR; DERELL
CARTER; and MARK INGRAM
Defendant.
1:25-cv-01743 (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 December 14, 2025, plaintiff pro se Valerie Flores (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action
against Tyrone Hoye, Centorian Hoye, Michael Hoye, Jamal Wheaton, Derek, Darryl Franklin, Jr.,
Derell Carter, and Mark Ingram (together, “Defendants”), alleging violations of her rights, Dkt.
No. 1, and filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 2.
1 The Court notes that Defendant Centorian Hoye’s name has previously appeared on the docket
as “Centonan.” Plaintiff clarified in a letter to the Court that the proper spelling is “Centorian.”
Dkt. No. 19 at 1. 	The Clerk is accordingly directed to update the docket to reflect the correct
spelling.
Case 1:25-cv-01743-AMN-ML Document 27 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 8

2
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric. On January 5,
2026, Magistrate Judge Lovric denied Plaintiff’s IFP motion as incomplete. 	Dkt. No. 4. 	On
January 16, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 7 (“Complaint”), and a letter motion
for a lifetime injunction and restraining order, Dkt. No. 8 (“Motion”). 	On January 26, 2026,
Plaintiff separately filed a letter motion seeking an injunction against “all Defendants and their
significant others.” Dkt. No. 10 at 1. After Plaintiff filed an amended motion to proceed IFP on
January 27, 2026, Dkt. No. 11, Magistrate Judge Lovric again denied Plaintiff’s request because
Plaintiff’s application was incomplete, Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff filed a second amended motion to
proceed IFP on March 10, 2026, Dkt. No. 15, which Magistrate Judge Lovric denied because
Plaintiff’s application information required clarification as to her reported income, Dkt. No. 17.
Plaintiff filed a third amended motion to proceed IFP on April 3, 2026. Dkt. No. 18. On
June 3, 2026, Plaintiff filed a third letter motion to clarify the amount of her monetary demand.
Dkt. No. 19. 	On September 4, 2026, Magistrate Judge Lovric granted Plaintiff’s request to
proceed IFP and reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 	Dkt. No. 22 (“Report-
Recommendation”). Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended that this Court dismiss the Complaint
in its entirety without leave to amend. Id. at 11. 2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Magistrate
Judge Lovric 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 12. On September 22, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a written objection. Dkt.
No. 23.
For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
2 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
Case 1:25-cv-01743-AMN-ML Document 27 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 8

3
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). Similarly, when a party files “[g]eneral or conclusory objections,
or objections which merely recite the same arguments [previously] presented to the magistrate
judge,” the district court 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
Case 1:25-cv-01743-AMN-ML Document 27 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 8

4
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
Read liberally, Plaintiff’s objection comprises a conclusory request for $40,000 from each
Defendant. Dkt. No. 23. 3 Plaintiff’s objection, filed eighteen days after Magistrate Judge Lovric
issued the Report-Recommendation, is untimely. See Dkt. Nos. 22-23. Moreover, Plaintiff does
not address any specific finding in the Report-Recommendation or support her position with legal
authority. See generally Dkt. No. 23. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not raised any properly
preserved 	objection 	to 	the 	Report-Recommendation, 	the 	Court 	reviews 	the 	Report-
3 Plaintiff suggests that she is entitled to compensation pursuant to Wisconsin’s Crime Victim
Compensation program. Dkt. No. 23; see Wis. Stat. §§ 949.001 et seq. Under Wisconsin law, the
state department of justice is responsible for administering the Crime Victim Compensation
program, see Wis. Stat. § 949.02, and provides an administrative process by which individuals
may apply for an award, id. at § 949.04. That agency is not a party to this action, nor does Plaintiff
offer any reason to believe that this Court is empowered to grant an award under Wisconsin’s
program. See Dkt. No. 23.
Case 1:25-cv-01743-AMN-ML Document 27 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 8

5
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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), or alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Dkt. No. 22 at 7-9.
Magistrate Judge Lovric first analyzed whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s claims as alleged in the Complaint. 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). Magistrate Judge Lovric found that Plaintiff
has not raised any federal question. 	Dkt. No. 22 at 6. 	Construing the Complaint liberally in
deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status, Magistrate Judge Lovic found that the Complaint refers to
several federal criminal statutes, none of which provide a private right of action under which
Plaintiff might sue. 	Id. (first citing Dkt. No. 7-1, then quoting Limtung v. Thomas, No. 19-CV-
3646, 2019 WL 6253815, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2019) and Shidagis v. Broome Cnty. D.S.S.,
No. 23-CV-0031, 2023 WL 2140019, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2023) (Sannes, C.J.)). 	As to
diversity jurisdiction, Magistrate Judge Lovric found it “debatable whether the [Complaint] asserts
enough information for the Court to determine whether the parties are completely diverse.” Dkt.
No. 22 at 6. 	Magistrate Judge Lovric noted that Plaintiff appears to assert that Defendants are
citizens of Wisconsin, though with limited detail; and that Plaintiff has filed a letter clarifying that
she seeks $40,000 from each Defendant, for an aggregated total of between $280,000 and
$320,000. Dkt. No. 22 at 6-7 (citing Dkt. No. 19). Magistrate Judge Lovric also noted that the
amount in controversy requirement of the diversity jurisdiction statute permits aggregation. Id. at
Case 1:25-cv-01743-AMN-ML Document 27 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 8

6
6-7 (citing Dkt. No. 7 at 2-3; Wood v. Maguire Auto. LLC, No. 09-CV-0640, 2011 WL 4478485,
at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2011)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Magistrate Judge Lovric accordingly
assumed without deciding that Plaintiff adequately alleges subject matter jurisdiction based on
diversity of citizenship and addressed the merits of the Complaint. 4
Magistrate Judge Lovric next recommended that this Court dismiss the Complaint as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Dkt. No. 22 at 7-8. Even after construing the
Complaint liberally in deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status, Magistrate Judge Lovric found that
“Plaintiff does not provide any ‘plausible factual support for her claims of stalking’” and her claims
accordingly “‘rise to the level of irrational and must be dismissed as frivolous.’” Id. at 8 (quoting
Moore v. Georgia, No. 24-CV-5545, 2024 WL 4149959, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2024)).
Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended in the alternative that the Court dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	Id. at 8-9. Magistrate
Judge Lovric explained that “the criminal statutes that Plaintiff purports form the legal basis of her
claims,” including Wisconsin Statute 940.22 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261(A), 15141, 1201, and 1203,
“do not ‘confer a private right of action on Plaintiff.’” Id. at 8 (quoting Flores v. KW Call Center
Services, No. 26-CV-0122, 2026 WL 1481648, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. May 27, 2026) (Sannes, C.J.)).
Magistrate Judge Lovric further found that, to the extent that the Court may liberally construe the
Complaint as asserting claims of stalking or harassment pursuant to New York common law, New
York similarly does not recognize private causes of action for stalking or harassment. 	Id. at 9
(citing Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 806 F. Supp. 3d 454, 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2025); Jones v. L3
Harris, 730 F. Supp. 3d 26, 29 (W.D.N.Y. 2024)).
4 Because the Court dismisses the Complaint, the Court agrees that it is unnecessary to resolve the
closer question of whether Plaintiff has adequately pled diversity jurisdiction.
Case 1:25-cv-01743-AMN-ML Document 27 Filed 10/13/26 Page 6 of 8

7
Next, Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended that this Court not grant leave to amend, even
after giving deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status. Id. at 10. Magistrate Judge Lovric found that
better pleading would not cure the deficiencies identified in Plaintiff’s claims, because they are
frivolous on their face and rely on statutes that do not provide a private right of action as a matter
of law. Id. at 9-10.
Finally, Magistrate Judge Lovric noted that Plaintiff has filed three letter motions seeking
injunctive relief based upon her claims in this case. 	Id. at 11 (citing Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, 16, 19).
Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff’s letter motions because the
claims upon which Plaintiff seeks relief are frivolous or without legal basis. Id.
After review, the Court finds no clear error in the Report-Recommendation. 	The Court
therefore adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety and dismisses the Complaint without
leave to amend.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No 22, is ADOPTED in its entirety; and
the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 7, be DISMISSED with prejudice and
without leave to amend; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Letter Motions, Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, 19, are DENIED; and the Court
further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules. 5
5 The Clerk shall also provide Plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions cited herein.
Case 1:25-cv-01743-AMN-ML Document 27 Filed 10/13/26 Page 7 of 8

8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:25-cv-01743-AMN-ML Document 27 Filed 10/13/26 Page 8 of 8