UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 Silt “2 ED sink oS WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Eseries) AT JAN 9 4 2025 JASON ARMSTRONG, Qs as J) STERN DISTRICT Plaintiff, Vv. 18-CV-1380 (JLS) (LGF) □ DR. KEN JIN, M.D., and DR. PAULA BOZER, M.D. Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jason Armstrong commenced this action pursuant to

claiming that, while in New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (““DOCCS”) custody, Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his constitutional rights. See Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under

(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 21. Defendants moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 61. Plaintiff opposed the motion, Dkt. 65, and Defendants replied. Dkt. 66. On October 31, 2024, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ [61] motion based on Plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies.! See Dkt. 67 at 33.2

1 Alternatively, the R&R recommends that this Court deny the [61] motion on the merits of Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims. 2 Page references refer the CM/ECF stamped numbering in the header of each page.

Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 68. Specifically, he objects to the R&R’s conclusion that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

.3 A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). But neither

nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Foschio’s recommendation that this Court grant summary judgment to Defendants based on Plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies. As such, the [61] motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 21, 2025 Buffalo, New York /

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 Defendants also objected to the R&R. Dkt. 69. Specifically, they “object to the R&R’s finding that Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference should survive summary judgment.” Jd. at 2. Plaintiff opposed the objections, Dkt. 73, and Defendants replied. Dkt. 74.