UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SCOTT PHILLIP LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v. 8:24-cv-00535 (AMN/DJS)

TOWN OF ELIZABETHTOWN,

Defendant.

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

SCOTT PHILLIP LEWIS 1936 Saranac Avenue #3, PMB 411 Lake Placid, New York 12946 Plaintiff, pro se

Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:

ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff pro se Scott Phillip Lewis commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (“Section 1983”) alleging that Defendant Town of Elizabethtown violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff sought and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 2, 4. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Daniel J. Stewart, who reviewed the Complaint pursuant to

(e) and, on May 31, 2024, recommended that the Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 5 (“Report-Recommendation”). Magistrate Judge Stewart advised that pursuant to

(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days within which to file written objections and that failure to object to the Report- Recommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate review.

.1 After requesting and receiving an extension of time to file objections, Plaintiff did so. Dkt. Nos. 6-8. For the reasons set forth below, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation that have been properly preserved with a specific objection.

(b)(1)(C). “To be ‘specific,’ the objection must, with particularity, ‘identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.’” Petersen v. Astrue,

(N.D.N.Y. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 72.1(c)). If no specific objections have been filed, this Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen,

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s notes to 1983 addition). Similarly, when a party files “[g]eneral or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same arguments

[previously] presented to the magistrate judge,” the district court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendations for clear error. O’Diah v. Mawhir, No. 08-cv-322,

, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations omitted); accord Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2002) (a “statement, devoid of any reference to specific findings or recommendations to which [the plaintiff] objected and why, and unsupported by legal authority, was not sufficient to preserve” a claim); Petersen,

-29 & n.6 (collecting cases). “When performing such a ‘clear error’ review, ‘the court need only satisfy itself that there is no

1 Citations to docket entries utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic filing system, and not the documents’ internal pagination. clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Dezarea W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-cv-01138,

, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-0367,

, at *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)). “[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than

that accorded to ‘formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Govan v. Campbell,

(N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner,

(1972)) (additional citations omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to “make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants” from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a legal education.

(quoting Traguth v. Zuck,

(2d Cir. 1983)). That said, “even a pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal . . . .” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-cv-13320,

, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No. 22-cv-567,

, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). After appropriate review, “the

court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). III. DISCUSSION The Court adopts those aspects of the Report-Recommendation to which neither party has raised a specific objection, finding no clear error therein, including the background and the legal framework set forth in the Report-Recommendation, familiarity with which is presumed for purposes of this decision. As described in the Report-Recommendation, the essence of the Complaint is that Plaintiff brought his computers to observe a court proceeding to which he was not a party and was, eventually, “kicked out of the courtroom” given concerns that he was recording the proceeding. Dkt. No. 5 at 3-4. Plaintiff raises one objection to the Report-Recommendation: that the finding by Magistrate Judge Stewart that the Complaint did not allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by Defendant “is simply preposterous.” Dkt. No. 8 at 1. Plaintiff goes on to argue that he “had every right to attend the court hearing” and that “[t]he custom and policy of removing those who

wish to report the truth was properly alleged.”

Following de novo review, the Court concludes that the Report-Recommendation correctly found that the Complaint fails to allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by Defendant. Dkt. No. 5 at 4-6 (citing, inter alia, Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y.,

(1978)). Accordingly, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 5, is ADOPTED in its entirety; and the Court further ORDERS that the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend;2 and the

Court further ORDERS that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order; and the Court further ORDERS that, if Plaintiff files a timely amended complaint, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for review; and if Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to close this case without further order of this Court; and the Court further

2 Any amended pleadings must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 11, 2024 Owe) . Jar Albany, New York Anne M. Nardacci U.S. District Judge

> The Clerk has previously provided Plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions herein.