UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________

CARLOS MEJIA,

Plaintiff, 9:19-CV-1482 v. (GTS/CFH)

EVAN PRITCHARD, Corr. Officer, f/k/a Prichard; and MICHAEL SEXTON, Corr. Officer, f/k/a A. Saxton,

Defendants. _____________________________________________

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

CARLOS MEJIA, 17-A-2830 Plaintiff, Pro Se Five Points Correctional Facility Caller Box 119 Romulus, New York 14541

HON. LETITIA A. JAMES LYNN MARIE KNAPP, ESQ. Attorney General for the State of New York Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224

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

Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Carlos Mejia (“Plaintiff”) against the two above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”) pursuant to

, are (1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rules 10.1(c) and 41.2(b) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court, and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted, and that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rules 10.1(c) and 41.2(b) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 36.) Neither party has 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 Hummel’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 36.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and Local Rules 10.1(c) and 41.2(b) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court. ACCORDINGLY, it is

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 36) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 33) is GRANTED; and it is further

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 ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 23) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Dated: November 3, 2020 Syracuse, New York

Glenn T. Suddaby Chief U.S. District Judge