Opinion
1:24-CV-0556 (GTS/DJS)
08-28-2024
ALEXIS FIGUEREO, Plaintiff, v. MARCUS FELTON, Police Officer; GRIFFIN CLARK, Albany Police Officer; ALAN WOJEWODZIC, Sergeant; ROBERT LAWYER, Detective; PJ O'DONOVAN, Detective; THE CITY OF ALBANY; and JOHN DOES OFFICERS, Albany Police Dept., Defendants.
ALEXIS FIGUEROA Plaintiff, Pro Se
ALEXIS FIGUEROA Plaintiff, Pro Se
DECISION and ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Alexis Figueroa (“Plaintiff”) against the City of Albany and certain employees of the Albany Police Department (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart's Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be sua sponte dismissed with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the ReportRecommendation and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart's thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Stewart 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 stated 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 Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of this Court UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT that cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff wish to file an Amended Complaint in this matter, the Amended Complaint must be a complete pleading which will supercede and replace his original Complaint in all respects; and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file a timely Amended Complaint, the Amended Complaint shall be returned to Magistrate Judge Stewart for further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.