DICKSON v. VANHOUSEN ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ SIMONE DICKSON, Plaintiff, 1:22-CV-1239 v. (GTS/DJS) VANHOUSEN, Mr. & Mrs., Corr. Officers; REBECCA LAURALIE KIRCHMAN, Corr. Officer; SCHENECTADY COUNTY JAIL; and GANGROM, Corr. Officer, Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: SIMONE DICKSON Plaintiff, Pro Se 11795 Bowman Towne Drive Reston, Virginia 20190 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Simone Dickson (“Plaintiff”) against Schenectady County Jail and the three above-captioned corrections officers (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, the Court finds no clear error in the Report-Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, 1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Dated: January 23, 2023 Syracuse, New York Glenn T. Suddaby ; U.S. District Judge 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.” /d.; 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).