Opinion
1:21-CV-0971 (GTS/DJS)
11-18-2021
MELVIN PERRY, a/k/a MELVIN H. PERRY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL R. CUEVAS; ALICIA LENDON; JUDE MAIN, JR.; DISTRICT ATTORNEY PASQUA, and AARON EDWARDS, Defendants.
MELVIN PERRY Plaintiff, Pro Se
MELVIN PERRY
Plaintiff, Pro Se
DECISION AND ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Melvin Perry ("Plaintiff) against the five above-named individuals ("Defendants") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart's Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs Complaint be sua sponte dismissed with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by 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 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 *l (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. 6) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be sua sponte DISMISSED
with prejudice and without further Order of the Court if, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff does not file an AMENDED COMPLAINT curing the pleading defects identified in his original Complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that, upon filing, the Amended Complaint shall automatically be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for his review.