UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___________________________________________ ALEXIS FIGUEROA, Plaintiff, 1:24-CV-0556 v. (GTS/DJS) MARCUS FELTON, Police Officer; GRIFFIN CLARK, Albany Police Officer; ALAN WOJEWODZIC, Sergeant; ROBERT LAWYER, Detective; PJ O’DONOVAN, Detective; THE CITY OF ALBANY; JOHN DOES OFFICERS, Albany Police Dept.; KATHY SHEEHAN, Mayor of City of Albany; and ERIC HAWKINS, Chief of Albany Police Dep’t, Defendants. ___________________________________________ APPEARANCES: ALEXIS FIGUEROA Plaintiff, Pro Se 60 Henry Street Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Alexis Figueroa (“Plaintiff”) against the City of Albany and employees of the Albany Police Department (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed in part pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) 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 stated therein. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause claim asserted in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 7) is DISMISSED with prejudice, but that the remaining claims in the Amended Complaint (specifically, Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force, his First Amendment claim, and his municipal liability clam) SURVIVE the Court’s initial review. Dated: January 31, 2025 Syracuse, New York Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge

! When no objection 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. 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.) (“Iam 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).