UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SHARIF KING,

Plaintiff,

v. 9:22-cv-00643 (AMN/ML)

R. LAMB,

Defendant.

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

SHARIF KING Five Points Correctional Facility Caller Box 119 Romulus, New York 14541 (last known address) Plaintiff pro se

LETITIA A. JAMES RACHAEL OUIMET, ESQ. Attorney General for the State of New York Assistant Attorney General Litigation Bureau The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Defendant

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

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff pro se Sharif King (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to

alleging that Corrections Officer R. Lamb (“Defendant”) violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Dkt. No. 1 (the “Complaint”). Defendant Lamb moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rules 37 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and sought monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 29 (the “Motion”). Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion. On December 14, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that this Court grant the Motion, dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, and impose a monetary sanction of $88.80 upon Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 32 (the “Report-Recommendation”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation.

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

(b)(1)(C); Petersen v. Astrue,

(N.D.N.Y. 2012). If no specific objections have been filed, this Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendations for clear error. See

at 229 (citing 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.” Dezarea W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:21-CV-01138 (MAD/TWD),

, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting

Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:17-CV-0367 (GTS/WBC),

, at *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)). 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 As no party has filed objections to the Report-Recommendation, this Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. To reach his recommendation to dismiss the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Lovric considered each of the five factors that courts in the Second Circuit use to adjudicate motions pursuant to Rule 41(b), Dkt. No. 32 at 6-8 (quoting, inter alia, Lucas v. Miles,

(2d Cir. 1996)), and found that each factor weighed in favor of dismissal with prejudice,

The Court has reviewed this recommendation for clear error and found none. However, in consideration of Plaintiffs pro se and in forma pauperis status, the Court declines to impose a monetary sanction. See, e.g., Baez v. Kennedy Child Study Ctr., No. 11-CV-7635 (JMF),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2013). As such, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 32, is ADOPTED; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant’s motion to dismiss and for monetary sanctions, Dkt. No. 29, is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of the Complaint, and DENIED to the extent it seeks monetary sanctions; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 2, 2024 ome, Yarducer nay, New Yor