govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-5_25-cv-01199-1

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
________________________________________________ 
 
PRINELL PAUL, 
 
Plaintiff,    
 5:25-CV-1199 
v.           (GTS/MJK) 
 
CARDEN, DOTZLER, HAMMOND LAW, PLLC LAW  
FIRM; CLIFFORD CARDEN, Attorney at Law; 
MATTHEW DOTZLER, Attorney at Law; DAVID  
HAMMOND, Attorney at Law; BRIAN TEDD, Attorney  
at Law; and NICHOLAS HURTADO, Attorney at Law; 
 
Defendants. 
________________________________________________ 
 
APPEARANCES:       
 
PRINELL PAUL, 05002328   
   Plaintiff, Pro Se 
Onondaga County Justice Center 
555 South State Street 
Syracuse, New York 13202 
 
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge 
DECISION and ORDER 
 
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Prinell Paul 
(“Plaintiff”) against the law firm of Carden, Dotzler, Hammond Law, PLLC, and five of its 
attorneys (“Defendants”) asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is United States Magistrate 
Judge Mitchell J. Katz’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be 
sua sponte dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 
(Dkt. No. 7.)  Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the 
deadline to do so has expired.  (See generally Docket Sheet.) 
Case 5:25-cv-01199-GTS-MJK     Document 8     Filed 04/07/26     Page 1 of 3
 
 
2 
Based upon a review of this matter, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-
Recommendation:1  Magistrate Judge Katz employed the proper standards, accurately recited the 
facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts.  As a result, the Court accepts and adopts the 
Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein.  (Dkt. No. 7.)  To those reasons, the 
Court adds only two brief points. 
First, although the Report-Recommendation recommends that the dismissal of Plaintiff’s 
Complaint be only without prejudice, the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice to be more 
appropriate for each of two alternative reasons: (1) the implausibility of any civil claim by 
Plaintiff against Defendants based on the factual allegations asserted; and (2) Plaintiff’s abuse of 
the litigation process in this District.  
Second, Plaintiff has an extensive litigation history in this District, having filed more than 
twenty pro se actions in 2025 alone.  In two of those actions, the Court warned Plaintiff that his 
continued abuse of the litigation process may result in an Order directing him to show cause why 
he should not be enjoined from filing future pro se actions in this District without prior leave of 
the District’s Chief Judge.  See Paul v. Hawker, 25-CV-0132, Decision and Order, at 8-9 
(N.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 9, 2025) (Suddaby, J.); Paul v. Passini, 25-CV-0030, Decision and Order, 
at 11-13 (N.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 18, 2025) (Suddaby, J.).  Because this action was commenced 
 
1  When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-
recommendation to only a clear error review.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 
1983 Addition.  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.”  Id.; 
see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) 
(Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which 
no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal 
quotation marks omitted). 
 
Case 5:25-cv-01199-GTS-MJK     Document 8     Filed 04/07/26     Page 2 of 3
 
 
3 
before the Court issued those two warnings, the Court will not, at this time, refer him to Chief 
U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes for consideration of such an Order to Show Cause.  
However, Plaintiff is again reminded that, if he continues to file frivolous actions, such a referral 
shall result. 
ACCORDINGLY, it is     
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Katz’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7) is 
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 
Dated: April 7, 2026 
Syracuse, New York 
 
____________________________________ 
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY  
United States District Judge 
Case 5:25-cv-01199-GTS-MJK     Document 8     Filed 04/07/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight