Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-5_25-cv-00974-1

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York · 2026-06-10

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:52:31

- 1 - 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
_____________________________________ 
 
ELLIS DAVON DUDLEY, II, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 -v- 5:25-CV-974 (AJB/ML) 
 
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT 
OF HEALTH HUMAN AND SOCIAL 
SERVICES, 
 
 Defendant. 
_____________________________________ 
 
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: 
 
ELLIS DAVON DUDLEY, II 
Plaintiff, Pro Se 
225 Allen Street 
Syracuse, NY 13210 
 
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge: 
 
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 
 
On July 23, 2025, pro se plaintiff Ellis Davon Dudley, II (“plaintiff”) filed this civil action 
against defendant New York State Department of Health, Human, and Social Services (“defend-
ant”) alleging that the suspension of his driver’s license for unpaid child support violated his civil 
rights. See Dkt. No. 1. Along with his complaint, plaintiff also moved for leave to proceed in 
forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. Nos. 2, 7. 
On May 13, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric granted plaintiff’s IFP Applica-
tion and, after conducting an initial review of the pleading, advised by Report & Recommendation 
(“R&R”) that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. Dkt. No. 8. As Judge 
Lovric explained, the named defendant —a state agency —was entitled to Eleventh Amendment 

- 2 - 
 
immunity. Id . But even accounting for plaintiff’s pro se status and considering the underlying 
factual allegations, various jurisdictional doctrines barred this Court from second- guessing the 
state-court determinations about child custody and support about which plaintiff complained. See 
id. And because the impact of these doctrines could not be avoided with better fact pleading, Judge 
Lovric recommended dismissal without leave to amend. Id. 
Plaintiff has not lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See 
Dkt. No. 8. U pon review for clear error , the R&R is accepted and will be adopted . See FED. R. 
CIV. P. 72(b). 
Therefore, it is 
ORDERED that 
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is ACCEPTED; and 
2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion , enter a judgment ac-
cordingly, and close the file. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 10, 2026 
 Utica, New York. 

Passage view · GavelSight