Shidagis v. Broome County Department of Social Services ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ SHANISE SHIDAGIS, Plaintiff, 3:22-CV-1299 v. (GTS/ML) BROOME COUNTY DEP’T OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: SHANISE SHIDAGIS Plaintiff, Pro Se 900 Vestal Parkway East Vestal, New York 13850 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Shanise Shidagis (“Plaintiff”) against the Broome County Department of Social Services (“Defendant”), is United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice but without leave to replead because this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over it. (Dkt. No. 4.) 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 Lovric 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 without prejudice (and without prior leave to amend) for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Dated: February 27, 2023 Syracuse, New York Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge 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).