Nicholas v. Seggos ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________ JASON B. NICHOLAS, Plaintiff, 8:23-CV-0463 v. (GTS/CFH) BASIL SEGGOS, Commissioner, NYS DEC; GAYE SOMOGIE, Licensed Guide Program Coordinator, NYS DEC; and JOSEPH THERRIEN, Licensed Guide Program Coordinator, NYS DEC; Defendants. _________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: JASON B. NICHOLAS Plaintiff, Pro Se 86 Duane Street Malone, New York 12953 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Jason B. Nicholas (“Plaintiff”) against the above employees of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s Report- Recommendation recommending that (1) the claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint asserted against Defendants in their official capacities (insofar as Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages) be dismissed with prejudice (and without prior leave to amend), and (2) Plaintiff’s remaining claims be permitted to proceed for now. (Dkt. No. 14.) 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 (Dkt. No. 14), 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. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the claims asserted in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10) against Defendants in their official capacities insofar as Plaintiff seeks monetary damages are DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the remaining claims in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10) SURVIVE the Court’s initial review and are permitted to proceed for now. Dated: October 24, 2023 Syracuse, New York Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge ! 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 t 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.) (“Iam 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).