UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEITH WILCOX, Plaintiff, -against- 9:19-CV-0715 (LEK/DJS) AUBURN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 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. 11 (“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 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). III. 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. 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 4) is GRANTED. Should

Plaintiff wish to file an amended complaint, he must do so in the next thirty days; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in

accordance with the Local Rules.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 12, 2019 Albany, New York

Lawrénee E. Kahn U.S. District Judge