UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________

DWIGHT R. DeLEE

Plaintiff, 5:20-CV-0549 v. (GTS/ATB)

CITY OF SYRACUSE,

Defendant. _____________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

DWIGHT R. DeLEE Plaintiff, Pro Se 711 North McBride Street, Floor 2 Syracuse, New York 13203

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Dwight R. DeLee (“Plaintiff”) against the City of Syracuse (“Defendant”) pursuant to

, are Chief United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10) be dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a claim pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii), and Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 11-12.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in 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.1 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 Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10) is dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a

claim pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii). In addition, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (which was filed after the expiration of the deadline by which to file an Objection to the Report-Recommendation) is denied as moot. In the alternative, that motion is denied as unsupported by a showing of cause in that (1) it is not accompanied by documentation that substantiates his efforts to obtain counsel from the public and private sector,2 and (2) in any event, it has not reasonably suggested that the assignment or counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination of this litigation. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10) is DISMISSED pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii); and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 12) is

1 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.) (“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). 2 See Terminate Control Corp. v. Horowitz,

(2d Cir. 1994); Cooper v. Sargenti Co., Inc.,

(2d Cir. 1989). 2 DENIED. Dated: October 5, 2020 Syracuse, New York

Glenn T. Suddaby Chief U.S. District Judge