Marty Calderon v. Ulster County Area Transit; Toni Roser; and Anthony Troccia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________ MARTY CALDERON, Plaintiff, 1:25-CV-1442 v. (GTS/MJK) ULSTER COUNTY AREA TRANSIT; TONI ROSER; and ANTHONY TROCCIA, Defendants. _________________________________________ APPEARANCES: MARTY CALDERON Plaintiff, Pro Se Healthy Way, Apt. 23 Ellenville, New York 12428 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Marty Calderon (“Plaintiff”) against Ulster County Area Transit, Toni Rosser, and Anthony Troccia (“Defendants”), asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment, is United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend, except as to Plaintiff’s damage claim for emotional distress, which Magistrate Judge Katz recommends be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally, Docket Sheet.) Instead, on November 21, 2026, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (See generally Dkt. No. 6.)

After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Katz’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Katz 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, and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt.

No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend, except as to Plaintiff’s damage claim for emotional distress, which is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Katz’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend within the next THIRTY (30) DAYS, except as to Plaintiff’s damage claim for emotional distress, which is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; and it is further ORDERED that, if Plaintiff wishes to amend her Complaint, she shall do one of the following two things within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the entry of this Decision and Order: (1) file a (revised) Amended Complaint curing the pleading defects identified in the Report-

1 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, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am 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).

Recommendation; or (2) file a letter to the Court stating that Plaintiff intends to rely on the Amended Complaint that she filed on November 21, 2025 (Dkt. No. 6); and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff do either of the above-described two things, her Amended Complaint shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Katz for further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Dated: March 19, 2026 Syracuse, New York United States District Judge