UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________________ TRAVIS O’RION HORNE, Plaintiff, 8:25-CV-0144 v. (GTS/DJS) TRI-STATE GARDEN SUPPLY, d/b/a Gardenscape, Inc.; JOHN FRIOT, Gardenscape Supervisor/Manager; DAVE KASMOCH, Tri-State Garden Supply Inc. – President/Owner, Defendants. _________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: TRAVIS O’RION HORNE Plaintiff, Pro Se 5 Douglas Road Gouverneur, New York 13642

GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Travis O’rion Horne (“Plaintiff”) against Tri-State Garden Supply, its owner Dave Kasmoch, and Supervisor John Friot (“Defendants”) asserting claims of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), are United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Tri-State Garden Supply may proceed, and that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants John Friot and Dave Kasmoch be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff did not file 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 set forth therein. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs ADA claims against Defendants Friot and Kasmoch are DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's ADA claim against Defendant Tri-State Garden Supply survives this Decision and Order. Dated: May 2, 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).