Opinion
1:18-CV-0772 (GTS/CFH)
01-31-2019
HEAVENLY WILSON, Plaintiff, v. NEW CHOICES RECOVERY CENTER; and STUART ROSENBLATT, Defendants.
APPEARANCES: HEAVENLY WILSON Plaintiff, Pro Se 657 Sunset Street Schenectady, New York 12303
APPEARANCES: HEAVENLY WILSON
Plaintiff, Pro Se
657 Sunset Street
Schenectady, New York 12303 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se employment civil rights action filed by Heavenly Wilson ("Plaintiff") against the above-captioned entity and individual ("Defendants"), is United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel's Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be sua sponte dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 8.) 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 Hummel's thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report- Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Hummel 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 Complaint shall be dismissed without further Order of the Court unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint correcting the pleading defect identified by Magistrate Judge Hummel. In addition to correcting that pleading defect, Plaintiff is advised that she should also allege facts plausibly suggesting how her supervisor Tricia Le treated non-African-American employees whom she also supervised differently than she treated Plaintiff.
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 Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED without further Order of the Court, unless, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint that corrects the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Hummel for review. Dated: January 31, 2019
Syracuse, New York
/s/_________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. District Judge