UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ ERIC LYNCH, Plaintiff, 6:23-CV-1454 v. (GTS/TWD) COUNTY OF HERKIMER, Defendant. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: ERIC LYNCH, 18-B-0755 Plaintiff, Pro Se Elmira Correctional Facility P.O. Box 500 Elmira, New York 14902 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Eric Lynch (“Plaintiff”) against the County of Herkimer (“Defendant”), is Chief United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 15) be dismissed without leave to replead pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). (Dkt. No. 19.) 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 Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation:' Magistrate Judge Dancks 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 Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 15) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 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).