Opinion
9:17-CV-0126 (GTS/TWD)
01-30-2018
JAMEL L. JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. DR. TRACHTMAN, Medical Doctor, Washington Corr. Facility, Defendant.
APPEARANCES: JAMEL L. JENKINS Plaintiff, Pro Se 40 Carol Street Lakeview, New York 11552 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendant The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 OF COUNSEL: KATIE E. VALDER, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General
APPEARANCES: JAMEL L. JENKINS
Plaintiff, Pro Se
40 Carol Street
Lakeview, New York 11552 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendant
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224 OF COUNSEL: KATIE E. VALDER, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Jamel L. Jenkins ("Plaintiff") against Dr. Trachtman, a medical doctor employed at Washington Correctional Facility in Comstock, New York ("Defendant"), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks' Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim be granted, and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. (Dkt. Nos. 13, 15.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks' thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff's Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice if, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order, he does not file an Amended Complaint that corrects the pleading defects in his original Complaint.
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). --------
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED ; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of the Court if, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, he does not file an Amended Complaint that corrects the pleading defects in his original Complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file a timely Amended Complaint, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Dancks for review. Dated: January 30, 2018
Syracuse, New York
/s/_________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief United States District Judge