UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ ZACHARY JACKSON, Plaintiff, 5:25-CV-0350 v. (GTS/TWD) THOMAS LEONE; BRITTANY GROME ANTONACCI; ROME CANZANO; and MARK MOODY, Defendants. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: ZACHARY JACKSON Plaintiff, Pro Se Cayuga County Jail 7445 County House Road Auburn, New York 13021 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Zachary Jackson (“Plaintiff”) against Thomas Leone, Brittany Grome Antonacci, Rome Canzano, and Mark Mooday (“Defendants”) asserting a conspiracy claim under

(1), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 6.) 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 Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation:' Magistrate Judge Dancks 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. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) 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, UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint which corrects the pleading defects identified in Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint within the above-stated thirty-day time period, the Amended Complaint shall be returned to Magistrate Judge Dancks for review. Dated: July 17, 2025 S New York Glenn T. Suddaby yracuse, INew 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).