UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________ BERNARD BEY, Plaintiff, 1:24-CV-1281 v. (GTS/DJS) ROCNATION, LLC; MR. SEAN C. CARTER; LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; THE CITY OF ALBANY; JUSTICE JILL A. KEHN; and DAVID LEVY, Defendants. _________________________________________ APPEARANCES: BERNARD BEY Plaintiff, Pro Se 35 Dwight Street, Apt. 6B Brooklyn, New York 11231 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Bernard Bey (“Plaintiff”) against the City of Albany, Albany Family Court Judge Jill Kehn, Albany Family Court Support Magistrate David Levy, Mr. Sean C. Carter, Rocnation, LLC, and Live Nation Entertainment, LLC (“Defendants”) alleging claims under

, is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, except for his state law claims which should be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Dkt. No. 9.) 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 and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice, EXCEPT for his state law claims which are DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in state court within the applicable limitations period. 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).