UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ JASMINE GRACE-LOUISE EDWARDS, Plaintiff, 5:19-CV-1118 v. (GTS/ATB) ANDREA DUNN, Defendant. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: JASMINE GRACE-LOUISE EDWARDS Plaintiff, Pro Se 335 Valley Drive Syracuse, New York 13207 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se breach-of-contract action filed by Jasmine Grace-Louise Edwards (“Plaintiff”) against Andrea Dunn, is Chief United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed, without prejudice but without the opportunity to amend, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 4.) 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 Baxter’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report- Recommendation.’ Magistrate Judge Baxter 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 is sua sponte dismissed without prejudice but without a prior opportunity to amend. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is sua sponte DISMISSED without prejudice but without a prior opportunity to amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Dated: November 15, 2019 Syracuse, New York

Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby Chief U.S. District Judg

! 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,

, 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).