Brennan v. NCAComp Inc. ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ KEVIN JOSEPH GABRIEL BRENNAN, Plaintiff, 3:22-CV-0127 v. (GTS/ML) NCACOMP, INC., Owner Kevin Gregory; JOLEEN M. BOLGER (Snowdon), Manager of NCAComp., Inc.; DR. ANNE M. CAULKINS, Site Supervisor of Lourdes Pain and Wellness Ctr.; and RENE BARNES (Piccirilli), Manager of N.Y.S. Worker’s Comp. Bd.; and ASCENSION LOURDES, Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: KEVIN JOSEPH GABRIEL BRENNAN Plaintiff, Pro Se Kevin Brennan 319 Exchange Avenue Townhouse #20 Endicott, New York 13760 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act by Kevin Joseph Gabriel Brenna (“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned individuals and entities (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint be sua sponte dismissed without leave to replead because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 17.) 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 error in the Report-Recommendation, clear or otherwise:’ Magistrate Judge Lovric employed the proper standards, 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 Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to replead. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 16) is sua sponte DISMISSED because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dated: January 17, 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 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).