Opinion
5:20-CV-937 (GTS/TWD)
08-30-2021
SAYVION D. BLOUNT, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ONONDAGA; CITY OF SYRACUSE; TIMOTHY ROULAN; JOSEPH CENTRA; JANELLE N. ECKER; IAN DUQUETTE; and ANDREW TORRANCE, Defendants.
SAYVION D. BLOUNT, 20-A-1115, Plaintiff, Pro Se Fishkill Correctional Facility
SAYVION D. BLOUNT, 20-A-1115, Plaintiff, Pro Se Fishkill Correctional Facility
DECISION AND ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Sayvion D. Blount (“Plaintiff”) against the County of Onondaga, the City of Syracuse, and the five above-captioned individuals (“Defendants”) alleging civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks' Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 16) be sua sponte dismissed in its entirety and without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), with Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims being sua sponte dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff's state law claims being sua sponte dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. (Dkt. No. 17.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired despite the granting of three extensions. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate 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 in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein.
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.17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 16) is sua sponte DISMISSED in its entirety and without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) such that Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice and his state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in state court within the governing time period.
The Court certifies that an appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in good faith.