UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ ALYSIA LUHR, Plaintiff, 1:21-CV-0844 v. (GTS/CFH) PLANNED PARENTHOOD; DR. GRAY; and DR. MACK, Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: ALYSIA LUHR Plaintiff, Pro Se 95 Manor Sites Cohoes, New York 12047 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se personal injury action filed by Alysia Luhr (“Plaintiff”) against Dr. Gray, Dr. Mack, and Planned Parenthood (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to re- filing in an appropriate state forum. (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff has not 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.’ Magistrate Judge Hummel 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. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction without prejudice to re-filing in an appropriate state forum. Dated: October 19, 2021 Syracuse, New York

Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby Chief U.S. District Judg

! 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.) (“Iam 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).