UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ELIZABETH MARIE TERRY,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:24-cv-01492 (AMN/PJE)

YWCA OF NORTHEASTERN NEW YORK,

Defendant.

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

ELIZABETH MARIE TERRY 730 Plymouth Avenue – Apt. 3 Buffalo, New York 14213 Plaintiff pro se

Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:

ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On December 9, 2024, plaintiff pro se Elizabeth Marie Terry (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against defendant YWCA of Northeastern New York (“Defendant”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff sought and ultimately received leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 2, 4, 7 at 1-2.1 This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Paul J. Evangelista, who reviewed the Complaint pursuant to

(e) and, on August 26, 2025, issued a report- recommendation and order recommending that the Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend.

1 Citations to docket entries utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic filing system, and not the documents’ internal pagination. Dkt. No. 7 (“Report-Recommendation”). Magistrate Judge Evangelista advised that pursuant to

(b)(1), Plaintiff had fourteen days within which to file written objections and that failure to object to the Report-Recommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate review.

. Plaintiff filed objections on September 10, 2025. Dkt. No. 10. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its

entirety. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation that have been properly preserved with a specific objection.

(b)(1)(C). “To be ‘specific,’ the objection must, with particularity, ‘identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.’” Petersen v. Astrue,

(N.D.N.Y. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 72.1(c)). If no specific objections have been filed, this Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen,

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s notes to 1983 addition). Similarly, when a party files “[g]eneral or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same arguments [previously] presented to the magistrate judge,” the district court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendations for clear error. O’Diah v. Mawhir, No. 08-cv-322,

, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations omitted); accord Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2002) (a “statement, devoid of any reference to specific findings or recommendations to which [the plaintiff] objected and why, and unsupported by legal authority, was not sufficient to preserve” a claim); Petersen,

-29 & n.6 (collecting cases). “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.’” Dezarea W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-cv-01138,

, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-0367,

, at *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)). “[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than

that accorded to ‘formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Govan v. Campbell,

(N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner,

(1972)) (additional citations omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to “make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants” from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a legal education.

(quoting Traguth v. Zuck,

(2d Cir. 1983)). That said, “even a pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal . . . .” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-cv-13320,

, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No. 22-cv-567,

, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). After appropriate review, “the

court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). III. DISCUSSION The Court adopts those aspects of the Report-Recommendation to which no party has raised a specific objection, finding no clear error therein, including the background and the legal framework set forth in the Report-Recommendation, familiarity with which is presumed for purposes of this decision. As detailed at length in the Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Evangelista liberally construed Plaintiff’s allegations as seeking to bring discrimination claims and a claim for violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights. Dkt. No. 7 at 5-21. After examining the various deficiencies in Plaintiff’s allegations, including finding that she had failed to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he ultimately concluded that she had failed to state a claim.

Given the nature of these deficiencies, however, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended dismissal with leave to amend.

.

Plaintiff’s objections largely summarize the Report-Recommendation and identify no error in Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s findings or recommendations. Dkt. No. 10 at 1-4. To the extent that Plaintiff takes issue with the Report-Recommendation, the nature of her challenge is difficult to discern.

(objecting to consideration of whether Plaintiff had stated a disability discrimination claim because “[t]he Plaintiff does not have a disability and is not alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her literally having a disability”);

(objecting to recommendation that Plaintiff receive leave to amend the Complaint). Because Plaintiff has not raised any properly preserved objection to the Report- Recommendation, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. Petersen,

; Caldwell,

, at *1. Upon review, the Court discerns no clear error in Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s findings and recommendations. See generally Dkt. No. 7. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 7, is ADOPTED in its entirety; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and the Court further ORDERS that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order; and the Court further ORDERS that, if Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Evangelista for review; and if Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to close this case without further order of this Court; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.” IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2025 . □ RAL Albany, New York Anne M. Nardacci U.S. District Judge

? The Clerk shall also provide Plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions cited herein.