UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK REUBEN AVENT, Plaintiff, -against- 1:19-CV-0830 (LEK/DJS) PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

ORDER 1. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation by the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to

(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 5 (“Report-Recommendation”). Il. LEGAL STANDARD Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If objections are timely filed, a court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” § 636(b). However, if no objections are made, a district court need review the report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857,

, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey,

, 306—07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange,

(2d Cir.

2014). “A [district] judge... may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” § 636(b). Il. DISCUSSION No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none. The Court therefore adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 12, 2019 Albany, New York fig U.S. District Judge