UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ MELVIN PERRY, a/k/a MELVIN H. PERRY, Plaintiff, 1:21-CV-0971 v. (GTS/DJS) MICHAEL R. CUEVAS; ALICIA LENDON; JUDE MAIN, JR.; DISTRICT ATTORNEY PASQUA, and AARON EDWARDS, Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: MELVIN PERRY Plaintiff, Pro Se P.O. Box 943 1027 Jay Street Ogdensburg, New York 13669 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Melvin Perry (“Plaintiff”) against the five above-named individuals (“Defendants”) pursuant to

, is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 6.) 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 Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation.’ Magistrate Judge Stewart 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 Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of the Court if, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff does not filean AMENDED COMPLAINT curing the pleading defects identified in his original Complaint; and it is further ORDERED that, upon filing, the Amended Complaint shall automatically be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for his review. Dated: November 18, 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).