UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DARNELL JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:24-cv-00472 (AMN/DJS)

HUDSON POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

DARNELL JOHNSON 465 County Route 22 Hudson, New York 12534 Plaintiff, pro se

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

ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff pro se Darnell Johnson commenced this action using a form complaint that alleged harm as a result of “unjust actions” by Defendant Hudson Police Department. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff sought and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 2, 6. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart, who reviewed the Complaint pursuant to

(e) and, on April 29, 2024, recommended that (i) the Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend, and (ii) Plaintiff’s application to use the Court’s electronic filing system be denied without prejudice. Dkt. No. 7 (“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 Neither party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation and the time for filing objections has expired. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 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. Petersen v. Astrue,

(N.D.N.Y. 2012);

(b)(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 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).

1 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic filing system. III. DISCUSSION Because neither party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. Magistrate Judge Stewart found that the nature of the claim(s) in the four-sentence Complaint was unclear, the allegations lacked specificity, and that Defendant was not a suable

entity. Dkt. No. 7 at 3-4. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended that the Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend.

. Magistrate Judge Stewart also recommended that Plaintiff’s pro se application to use the Court’s electronic filing system, see Dkt. No. 4, be denied without prejudice, in part because Plaintiff’s filings suggested an attorney might appear on his behalf and in part because of the recommended dismissal of the Complaint. Dkt. No. 7 at 1 n.1. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Stewart’s findings and recommendations for the reasons set forth in the Report-Recommendation. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error, and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 7, 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

2 As set forth in the Report-Recommendation, any amended pleading must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 7 at 5. 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 ORDERS that Plaintiff's application to use the Court’s electronic filing system, Dkt. No. DENIED without prejudice; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. , Owe Wy, Yardarer Dated: June 10, 2024 — Albany, New York Anne M. Nardacci □ U.S. District Judge

> The Clerk shall also provide Plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions herein.