UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________

RASHAUN BLANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v. 9:21-cv-231 (BKS/CFH)

BANKS, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________________________

Appearances:

For Plaintiff: Sara Wolkensdorfer Stephanie Panousieris Rickner PLLC 14 Wall Street, Suite 1603 New York, NY 10005

For Defendant: Letitia James Attorney General for the State of New York Brittany M. Haner New York State Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Rashaun Blanford, who was at all relevant times in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, brought this action pro se1 pursuant to

asserting that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights and New York State law. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). The case was referred to the Hon.

1 Plaintiff is now represented by retained counsel. See Dkt. No. 137. Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation and Order pursuant to

(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Judge Hummel addressed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 100, and recommended that the motion be granted and the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. See Aug. 28, 2023

Report-Recommendation and Order, Dkt. No. 147. Although plaintiff’s counsel’s request for an extension of time to lodge objections to the Report-Recommendation and Order was granted, see Dkt. No. 149, counsel ultimately indicated that “after discussing Magistrate Lovric’s2 Recommendation and Order extensively with our client, we will not be filing any objections.” Dkt. No. 150. As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue,

, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

For these reasons, it is ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 147) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 100) is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2 The reference to Magistrate Judge Lovric appears to be a scrivener's error inasmuch as it appears in a letter to Judge Hummel bearing the name and civil action number of this case. See Dkt. No. 150. The Clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the file in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 10, 2024 | ( Pram da Sarr Brenda K. Sannes Chief U.S. District Judge