Cindy Alves, as Administratrix of the Estate of Cecil Alves, Deceased v....

ATES DISTR KOS FILED ep UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ss Py WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAN 20 2026 □ 4 % bette LOEWENGUTY oS CINDY ALVES, as Administratrix of the Estate SRN DISTRICL of CECIL ALVES, Deceased, Plaintiff, 24-CV-425 (JLS) (MJR) Vv.

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, sued herein individually; ANN MARIE SULLIVAN, Commissioner of New York State Office of Mental Health, sued herein individually; CHRISTOPHER YEHL, Superintendent, Wende Correctional Facility, sued herein individually; MARGARET STIRK, Unit Chief, Wende Correctional Facility, sued herein individually; SERGEANT RENE BUSTER, sued herein individually; MELISSA M DESA, MD, sued herein individually; CHRISTOPHER ZALUSKI, counselor, sued herein individually; and STEVEN MAHER, sued herein individually, Office of Special Investigation, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff commenced this action in New York State court on April 17, 2024, asserting federal and state claims surrounding her brother’s death by suicide while incarcerated at the Wende Correctional Facility. See Dkt. 1-2 at 11-380. The action was removed to federal court on May 2, 2024. Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 4.

On May 9, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint. Dkt. 2.

On April 25, 2025, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss while giving Plaintiff leave to replead several of her claims. Dkt. 15 at 3. On May 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, Dkt. 17, which alleged: (1) a claim against all Defendants for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of Plaintiffs decedent’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 19838, id. at 21-24; (2) a claim against Defendants Sullivan, Stirk, and Desa for medical malpractice, id. at 24—26; (8) a claim against Defendants Sullivan, Stirk, and Desa for negligence, id. at 26—28; (4) a claim against Defendants Sullivan, Stirk, and Desa for wrongful death, id. at 28-29; (5) a claim against all Defendants for maintaining policies, custom, and practices that failed to protect and constituted deliberate indifference in violation of Plaintiffs decedent’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, id. at 29-31; (6) a claim against all Defendants for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Plaintiffs decedent’s Eight Amendment rights, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, id. at 31-32; and (7) a claim against Defendants Annucci, Sullivan, Yehl, and Stirk for negligence in hiring, training, and supervision constituting deliberate indifference in violation of Plaintiffs decedent’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, id. at 82-34. On July 11, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Dkt. 23. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, Dkt. 26, and the Defendants replied, Dkt. 29.

On December 16, 2025, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) addressing the motion to dismiss. Dkt. 32. He recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted as to Plaintiffs fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action, as well as to all Section 1983 claims against Defendants Annucci, Sullivan, Yehl, and Maher. Id. at 5-14. He further recommends that the motion to dismiss be denied as to Plaintiffs state law claims and as to Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim against Defendants Sirk, Buster, Desa, and Zaluski for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Jd. at 13-18. Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. See Dkt. 32 at 18 (stating that objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days of receipt).

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 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, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and, based on that review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court accepts Judge Roemer’s recommendation.

Thus, for the reasons in the R&R, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 23, is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action, as well as to all Section 19838 claims against Defendants Annucci, Sullivan, Yehl, and Maher, and it is DENIED as to Plaintiff's state law claims and as to Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim against Defendants Sirk, Buster, Desa, and Zaluski for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The case is referred back to Judge Roemer consistent with the May 10, 2024 referral order. See Dkt. 4.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2026 Buffalo, New York , ef” fo) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE