Opinion
5:18-CV-0501 (GTS/TWD)
08-14-2018
EDDIE D. ENNIS, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE, Tina Stafford, Director, Defendant.
APPEARANCES: EDDIE D. ENNIS Plaintiff, Pro Se 114 Franklin Street, Apt. 208 Watertown, New York 13601
APPEARANCES: EDDIE D. ENNIS
Plaintiff, Pro Se
114 Franklin Street, Apt. 208
Watertown, New York 13601 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Eddie D. Ennis ("Plaintiff") against the New York Department of Parole ("Defendant"), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks' Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed unless, within forty-five days of the issuance of a Decision and Order adopting the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint correcting its pleading defects. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) Instead, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint attempting to correct the pleading defects identified by Magistrate Judge Dancks in the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 6).
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 in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is accepted for filing and will be referred to Magistrate Judge Dancks for review of its pleading sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
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. 5) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 6) is accepted for filing and this action is referred to Magistrate Judge Dancks for review of its pleading sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Dated: August 14, 2018
Syracuse, New York
/s/_________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge