UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DANIELLE C. HENDRICKS,

Plaintiff,

-against- 6:22-CV-1398 (LEK/ML)

UTICA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Danielle Hendricks brings this pro se action pursuant to

against Utica Police Department, Utica City Criminal Court, Elizabeth, Frank, and Judge Sabb (“Sabb”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants subjected her to various forms of misconduct in relation to her incarceration at the Oneida County Jail. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”) at 2–5; see also Dkt. No. 14 at 2–3. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 10 (“IFP Application”), and a motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. No. 12 (“Counsel Motion”). The Honorable Miroslav Lovric, United States Magistrate Judge, issued an Order and Report-Recommendation addressing the Complaint, IFP Application, and Counsel Motion. Dkt. No. 14 (“Report and Recommendation”). Judge Lovric (1) granted Plaintiff’s IFP Application, (2) denied Plaintiff’s Counsel Motion, and (3) recommended that this Court dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, in part with leave to amend, and in part without leave to amend. See R. & R. at 16–17. No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. II. BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with Judge Lovric’s Report and Recommendation, as well as with Plaintiff’s factual allegations as detailed therein. See

at 2–3. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of the court.”

(b)(1)(C); see also L.R. 72.1. However, if no objections are made, a district court need only review a report and recommendation for clear error. See DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.”). Clear error “is present when upon review of the entire record, the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Rivera v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

(S.D.N.Y. 2019). Additionally, a district court will ordinarily

refuse to consider an argument that could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance. See Hubbard v. Kelley,

, 312–13 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (“In this circuit, it is established law that a district judge will not consider new arguments raised in objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that could have been raised before the magistrate but were not.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Upon review, a court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). IV. DISCUSSION No party objected to the Report and Recommendation “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of it.

(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Having found none, the Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. V. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend to the extent that it (1) seeks monetary relief from Defendant Sabb and (2) asserts claims against Defendant Utica City Criminal Court, who are immune from such relief pursuant to

(e)(2)(B); and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend to the extent that it seeks to pursue criminal charges against Defendant Sabb, pursuant to

(e)(2)(B); and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to

amend to the extent that it alleges claims pursuant to

against Defendants Utica Police Department, Elizabeth/Alyssa, and Frank, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). Furthermore, if Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he must do so withing forty-five (45) days of this Memorandum-Decision and Order; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 5, 2023 Albany, New York AWRENCE E. KAHN United States District Judge