ATES DISTRICF KO>— FILED = ~LOD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ss Px WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK eT te Wetec LOEWENGUTH CINDY ALVES, as Administratix of the ERN DISTRICT Estate of CECIL ALVES, Deceased, Plaintiff, 24-CV-425 (JLS) (MJR) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, in his official capacity and individually; NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH; ANN MARIE SULLIVAN, Commissioner of New York State Office of Mental Health, in her official capacity and individually; SUPERINTENDENT CHRISTOPHER YEHL, Superintendent, Wende Correctional Facility, in his official capacity and individually; UNIT CHIEF MARGARET STIRK, Unit Chief, Wende Correctional Facility, in her official capacity and individually; SGT. RENE BUSTER, in her official capacity and individually; DR. MELISSA M. DESA, in her official capacity and individually; CHISTOPHER ZALUSKI, counselor, in his official capacity and individually; STEVEN MAHER, in his official capacity and individually, Office of Special Investigation, and Wende Correction Officers; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-5, in their official capacity and individually, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Cindy Alves, as Administratrix of the Estate of Cecil Alves, commenced this action in state court—alleging several federal and state claims against Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), Anthony J. Annucci, New York State Office of Mental Health, Ann Marie Sullivan, Superintendent Christopher Yehl, Unit Chief Margaret Stirk, Sgt. Rene Buster, Dr. Melissa M. Desa, Christopher Zaluski, Steven Maher, and John and Jane Does 1-5 (collectively, “Defendants”). See Dkt. 1-2. Defendants removed the action. Dkt. 1. On May 9, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 2. Plaintiff responded (Dkt. 7), and Defendants replied. Dkt. 8. The parties appeared for oral argument before Judge Roemer.! He then requested further briefing from the parties. Dkt. 11. The parties submitted briefs, responding to the outstanding issues. Dkt. 12-13. On March 12, 2025, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint, with leave to amend. Neither party filed objections. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s

1 This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under

(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 4.

recommendation to which a party objects. See

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither

nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, and accepts and adopts Judge Roemer’s recommendation. For the reasons stated above, and in the R&R, this Court GRANTS Defendants’ [2] motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint, with leave to amend, as described in the R&R. This case is referred back to Judge Roemer for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED. Dated: April 25, 2025 Buffalo, New York 3 J Pb SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG