Ricky Lee Winters v. N.Y.S. Police; Trooper J.L. Sedlack #5538; Tioga County...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ RICKY LEE WINTERS, Plaintiff, 3:25-CV-1408 v. (GTS/MJK) N.Y.S. POLICE; TROOPER J.L. SEDLACK #5538; TIOGA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY KIRK O’MARTIN; A.D.A. CHERYL MANCINI; TIOGA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF GARY HOWARD; UNKNOWN/UNNAMED TIOGA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPUTY; and LT. EDWARDS, Defendants. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: RICKY LEE WINTERS Plaintiff, Pro Se Main Street Lockwood, New York 14859 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Ricky Lee Winters (“Plaintiff”) against the Tioga County Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney Kirk O’Martin, Assistant District Attorney Cheryl Mancini, Sheriff Gary Howard, Lieutenant Edwards, the New York State Police, and Trooper J.L. Sedlack (“Defendants”), are (1) United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or alternatively for failure to state a claim; and (2) Plaintiff’s Objection, First Supplemental Objection, and Second Supplemental Objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15.) Although Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Objection (which is dated December 11, 2025, and postmarked December 13, 2025) is untimely, the Court has considered it, out of special solicitude to him as a pro se civil rights litigant.

Even when construed with the utmost of special leniency, Plaintiff’s Objections contain no specific challenge1 to any portion of the Report-Recommendation. (Compare Dkt. Nos. 13- with Dkt. No. 12.) In any event, even if Plaintiff’s Objections could be liberally construed as containing specific challenges to various portions of the Report-Recommendation, the Court finds no error2 in such portions, and no clear error3 in the remaining portions of the Report- To be "specific," an 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." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c); see also Mario v. P&C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Although Mario filed objections to the magistrate's report and recommendation, the statement with respect to his Title VII claim was not specific enough to preserve this claim for review. The only reference made to the Title VII claim was one sentence on the last page of his objections, where he stated that it was error to deny his motion on the Title VII claim ‘[f]or the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.' This bare statement, devoid of any reference to specific findings or recommendations to which he objected and why, and unsupported by legal authority, was not sufficient to preserve the Title VII claim.").

2 When a specific objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report- recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

3 When no specific 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: Magistrate Judge Katz employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (See generally Dkt. No. 12.) Asa result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted for the reasons set forth therein, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Katz’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend.

Dated: March 24, 2026 Syracuse, New York fe Yoetheg HON. GLENNT.SUDDABY ———™” United States District Judge