UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________ JOSHUA MALAVE-SYKES, Plaintiff, 3:24-CV-1358 v. (GTS/ML) GEODIS SCO USA, LLC, Defendant. _______________________________________ APPEARANCES: JOSHUA MALAVE-SYKES Plaintiff, Pro Se 15 Delaware Avenue, Apt. #245 Endicott, New York 13760

GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Joshua Malave-Sykes (“Plaintiff”) against Geodis SCO USA, LLC (“Defendant”), are United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be “dismissed . . . with leave to amend” for failure to state a claim pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 13.) 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 set forth therein. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of this Court for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to

(e)(2)(B), UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT that cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file such a timely AMENDED COMPLAINT, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Lovric for his review. Dated: March 28, 2025 Syracuse, New York

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).