UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ MATTHEW JONES, Plaintiff, 1:23-CV-1305 v. (GTS/DJS) GREENE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT.; and CORNELL UNIVERSITY CAMPUS POLICE DEPT., Defendants. ____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: MATTHEW JONES Plaintiff, Pro Se 11366 Sussex Highway Greenwood, Delaware

GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil action filed by Matthew Jones (“Plaintiff”) against the Greene County Sheriff’s Department and Cornell University Campus Police Department (“Defendants”), are United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report- Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed with leave to amend, and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8.) Even when construed with the utmost of special liberality, Plaintiff’s Objection does not contain a specific challenge to a finding or conclusion contained in the Report-Recommendation. (Compare Dkt. No. 8 with Dkt. No. 7.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is entitled to only a clear-error review.1 After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited

the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein. To those reasons, the Court would add only that the Report-Recommendation would easily survive even a de novo review. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of the Court UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT that cures the numerous pleading defects identified in his original Complaint (including a lack of factual allegations plausibly suggesting state action, a claim under the Eighth or First Amendments, a claim under

1 When no specific challenge is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear-error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition; see also Brown v. Peters, 95-CV-1641,

, at *2-3(N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997) (Pooler, J.) (collecting cases), aff'd without opinion,

(2d Cir. 1999). 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.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826,

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 the Federal Tort Claims Act, and a claim for common law negligence or assault and battery, and possible untimeliness); and it is further ORDERED that any Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff shall be a complete pleading that replaces his original Complaint in his entirety and does not incorporate by reference any portion of that original Complaint; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file a timely Amended Complaint, it shall automatically be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for his review. Dated: May 13, 2024 Syracuse, New York

U.S. District Judge