AD SED TR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S vA WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Covey )

Plaintiff, V. 24-CV-1054 (JLS) (MJR) DARRELL KLUTE, JOHN R. SEARLES, CATTARAUGUS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, KEVIN C. BURLESON, and CORTNEY SPITTLER, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Randall Barber commenced this action on October 30, 2024. Dkt. 1. He alleges various claims related to Cattaraugus County’s denial of his New York State Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) request, which sought access to “cast vote records” from the “General Election 2022.” Id. at 5. He also alleges claims related to the ultimate denial of his appeal from the initial Cattaraugus County decision. Jd. at 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under

(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 6. On November 25, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint. Dkt. 5. Plaintiff opposed the motion, Dkt. 10, and Defendants replied. Dkt. 11. On September 16, 2025, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. Dkt. 17 at 11-18.

Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 20. He argues that federal question jurisdiction in this case exists in this case under HAVA § 301(a)(2),

, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. at 2-3. He argues that Monell Liability applies in this case.

. He also argues that he has not received a meaningful opportunity to be heard in the instant case because this Court has not granted his motion for a hearing. Jd. Defendants opposed the objections, Dkt. 22. Plaintiff did not reply to the Defendants’ opposition. 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)(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 v. Arn,

(1985). This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections briefing, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts Judge Roemer’s recommendation. Dkt. 17 at 11.

For the reasons above and in the R&R, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 5, is GRANTED. Plaintiff has one final opportunity to replead in an attempt to state a cognizable claim, due by no later than December 30, 2025. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 9, 2025 Buffalo, New York #f / (

JOHN L,SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE