UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ EDWIN CUELLO, Plaintiff, 9:24-CV-0053 v. (GTS/ML) ALAN WEAVER, Lieut. # 937, Delaware Cnty. Corr. Fac.; DONALD SIMONDS, Corr. Officer / Sgt. # 2492, Delaware Cnty. Corr. Fac.; and DANIEL McGOWAN, Corr. Officer # 791, Delaware Cnty. Corr. Fac., Defendants. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: EDWIN CUELLO, 55909 Plaintiff, Pro Se Albany County Correctional Facility 840 Albany Shaker Road Albany, NY 12211 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Edwin Cuello (“Plaintiff”) against the three above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”) pursuant to

, is United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. No. 18.) 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 Lovric’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation:' Magistrate Judge Lovric 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, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 31) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 18) is GRANTED in part such that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment failure-to-intervene claim against Defendants McGowan and Simonds is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 18) is otherwise DENIED such that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims against all three Defendants, and Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment failure-to-intervene claim against Defendant Weaver, SURVIVE Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Dated: March 25, 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).