UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SHAKIEM JOHNSON Plaintiff, -against- 1:20-CV-0764 (LEK/CFH) MICHAEL J. FARGIONE, et al., Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Pro se plaintiff Shakiem Johnson filed a

action against Detective Michael J. Fargione, Detective Jason J. Kelleu, Officer Abrams, Officer Regan, Officer Gorleski, and Officer Plante. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). On February 17, 2021, the Honorable Christian F.

Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. No. 13 (“Report-Recommendation”). For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. II. BACKGROUND The facts are detailed in the Report-Recommendation, familiarity with which is assumed. See R. & R. at 4–5. III. STANDARDS 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). “A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” § 636(b). IV. 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. V. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the parties in

accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED: April 14, 2021 Albany, New York

Lawrénee E. Kahn U.S. District Judge