UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, 6:21-CV-1276 v. (GTS/TWD) MATTHEW S. PARKER, Defendant. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: MATTHEW S. PARKER Defendant, Pro Se 15 Main Street, Apt. M Sidney, New York 13838 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this removed action against Matthew S. Parker (“Defendant”) by People of the State of New York, is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s petition for removal (Dkt. No. 1) be dismissed and that the action be remanded to state court, because the action does not qualify for removal under

(a) and/or § 1455(a). (Dkt. No. 5.) 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 Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report- Recommendation.’ Magistrate Judge Dancks 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 Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Petition for Removal (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED and this action is REMANDED to the state court in which the proceeding was commenced. Dated: February 3, 2022 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).