UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SAMUEL LEONARD,

Plaintiff,

-against- 9:18-CV-0278 (LEK/DJS)

DR. F. NESMITH,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This is a civil rights suit brought by pro se plaintiff Samuel Leonard under

. Dkt. No. 8 (“Amended Complaint”). Plaintiff is incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility (“Great Meadow”),

, where defendant Fisher Nesmith works as a physician’s assistant, Dkt. No. 32-2 (Nesmith Declaration) ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that he went to see Defendant at the Great Meadow medical facility with a painful lump near his sternum, but that Defendant refused to provide treatment to him and would not refer Plaintiff to a specialist. Am. Compl. at 1. Based on these events, Plaintiff asserts an Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claim. Dkt. No. 9 (“July 2018 Order”). In January 2020, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. No. 32 (“Summary Judgment Motion”). Plaintiff failed to file a response to the Summary Judgment Motion, either by the original deadline of March 16, 2020, or by the extended deadline of April 30, 2020. Docket. Now before the Court is a Report-Recommendation filed by the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion and dismiss the Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 36 (“Report- Recommendation”). For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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.”

(b). However, if no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a 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 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange,

(2d Cir. 2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (“[E]ven a pro se party’s objections to a Report and

Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal . . . .”). “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 Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report-Recommendation. See Docket. Consequently, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error and finds none. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 36) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. No. 32) is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff?s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No 8) is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk close this action; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 10, 2020 Albany, New York

Senior U.S. District Judge