Nicholas Oudekerk v. Maille, Sheriff Dept. Investigator; and Ortiz, Sheriff...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ NICHOLAS OUDEKERK, Plaintiff, 1:25-CV-0919 v. (GTS/PJE) MAILLE, Sheriff Dept. Investigator; and ORTIZ, Sheriff Dept., Defendants. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: NICHOLAS OUDEKERK, 15509 Plaintiff, Pro Se Warren County Correctional Facility 1400 State Route 9 Lake George, NY 12845 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Nicholas Oudekerk (“Plaintiff”) against Maille, a Sheriff Department Investigator, and Ortiz, a Sheriff Department employee (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista’s Report- Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim be dismissed with prejudice, that his Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful seizure and failure to investigate and obtain exculpatory evidence be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend, and that his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim based on selective prosecution also be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)

After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Evangelista employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 8.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. (Id.) ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants Maile and Ortiz by failing to investigate nonparty McIntosh’s alleged assault of him is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; and it is further ORDERED that the remaining claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint (specifically, his Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful seizure and failure to investigate and obtain exculpatory evidence, and his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim based on selective prosecution)

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). shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of the Court UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT that cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation;’ and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff timely file such an Amended Complaint, it shall automatically be referred to Magistrate Judge Evangelista for his review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Dated: April 22, 2026 Syracuse, New York be Ydothty— HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY United States District Judge 2 Plaintiff is advised that his Amended Complaint must be a complete pleading which complies with the pleading standards set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 and N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 10.1, and which will supersede and replace his original Complaint in all respects.