iplts PPPs. Ko Fitts UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SS | Ors WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUL 16 2095 dy ee nbc LOEWE GUTH. STERN DISTRICT OF KEVIN MOSES and CHERYL MOSES, Plaintiffs, 24-CV-690 (JLS) (LGF) v. TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA, TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA POLICE DEPARTMENT, JAY BARTUSZEK, individually and in his capacity as Town of Cheektowaga Police Officer, and JEFFREY SCAGLIONE, individually and in his capacity as Town of Cheektowaga Police, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Kevin and Cheryl Moses commenced this action against Defendants in New York Supreme Court, Erie County, on June 24, 2024, asserting claims that their Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. Dkt. 1-2. Defendants removed the case to this Court on July 23, 2024, see Dkt. 1, and soon filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 3. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 10.

Presently before the Court is Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation! (“R&R”) recommending that Defendants’ motion? be granted and Plaintiffs’ motion be denied. See Dkt. 17. Having recommended that all claims pursuant to

be dismissed, the R&R also recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

. The R&R alternatively recommended that Plaintiffs’ common law negligence claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiffs objected to the R&R’s alternative conclusion that the state law negligence claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 20. Plaintiffs requested that the Court not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Defendants responded by asking the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the negligence claim on the merits. Dkt. 22.

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 recommendation to which a party objects. See

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). But neither

nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72

1 This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under

(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 4. 2 Judge Foschio treated Defendants’ motion as a motion to dismiss, as it sought to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dkt. 17 at 2 n.2.

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, the objections, and the relevant record. Based on that review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Foschio’s R&R— including the recommendation not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, and in the R&R, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 3) and DENIES Plaintiffs’ cross-motion (Dkt. 10). The complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend, and Plaintiffs’ negligence claim is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

(c)(3). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED. Dated: July 16, 2025 a ON Buffalo, New York Ae NITED STATES DISTRICT JUD