TES DISTR) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT KD Se TILED Lp WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Ss EA NOV 18 2025 Aa, XK 1/?} cy SEWENG A GC w ff MICHELLE NICOLE BONET, Lesrento eect ol Plaintiff, v. 22-CV-300 (JLS) (JJM) A. ANNUCCI, Former Acting Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), D. VENETTOZZI, DOCCS Director of Special/Inmate Disciplinary Program, S. SQUIRES, Superintendent of Albion Correctional Facility, P. CIULLA, Deputy of Programs, Albion Correctional Facility, P. BARHITE, Senior Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator, Albion Correctional Facility, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Michelle Bonet commenced this action on April 12, 2022, raising claims in relation to allegedly false positive drug tests and the resulting discipline that she received because of them during her incarceration at the Albion Correctional Facility in 2019. See Dkt. 2. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 6, 2022. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 17, 2024. Dkt. 13. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under

(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 22.

On February 2, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 21. Plaintiff opposed the motion, Dkt. 30, and Defendants replied. Dkt. 31. On September 25, 2025, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) addressing the motion to dismiss. Dkt. 32. He recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, and that Plaintiffs “Second, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action” be dismissed. Dkt. 32 at 32, 20-22, 27-28, 29-31. He further recommends that Plaintiffs “First and Third Causes of Action sounding in due process remain in place as to defendants Barhite, Ciulla, and Annucci” in their individual capacities.

. Finally, he recommends that “the other named defendants be dismissed from this action.”

. Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 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)(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 vu. Arn,

(1985). This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and, based on that review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court accepts Judge McCarthy’s recommendation. Thus, for the reasons in the R&R, Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs Second, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action is GRANTED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs First and Third Due Process Causes of Action against

Defendants Barhite, Ciulla, and Annucci in their individual capacities is DENIED. Any other named Defendants are DISMISSED from this action. The case is referred back to Judge McCarthy consistent with the February 6, 2025 referral order. See Dkt. 22. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 18, 2025 Buffalo, New York fe

JOHN‘. SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE