<AIES DISTR PY FILED Le 3 Ex UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 8 2022 WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ag eb Wess LOEWenNGUtH © — ERN DISTRICT © STONEY HARRISON,

Vv. 18-CV-821 (JLS) (LGF) KELLI BRODERICK, STEPHANY MILLER, JAMES JOHNSON, BISHME NELSON, FREDERICK KINTZEL, AND KEVIN BROWN, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Stoney Harrison commenced this action on July 27, 2018. Dkt. 1. Pursuant to an Order issued by District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo on January 14, 2020 (Dkt. 11), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on February 3, 2020. Dkt. 13. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under

and alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) in confiscating his religious pendant.

On February 7, 2020, Judge Vilardo issued an Order dismissing Plaintiffs claims for money damages against Defendants in their official capacities as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Dkt. 14. The case was reassigned to the undersigned on September 15, 2020. Dkt. 21. On September 16, 2020, this Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under

(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 22.

On October 14, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Dkt. 31. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and Defendants replied. Dkt. 33, 34. On August 18, 2022, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 31) and dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. Dkt. 36. On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 39. Defendants responded to the objections, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 41, 42. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). But neither

nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objection, response, and reply, and the materials submitted by the parties. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts Judge Foschio’s recommendation.

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. 31). As a result, the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

SO ORDERED. Dated: November 8, 2022 Buffalo, New York Af \ a= J OHN L. SINATRA, JR. ° a STATES DISTRIG