Frederick Johnson, IV v. Adam Licastro, Benjamin Shirback, Jerry Sparazza, City...

QD Ee CO WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Canines} JUN 0 8 2026 FREDERICK JOHNSON, IV, Ox tener Plaintiff, v. 21-CV-870 (JLS) (JJM) ADAM LICASTRO, BENJAMIN SHIRBACK, JERRY SPARAZZA, CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK, and COUNTY OF NIAGARA, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Frederick Johnson, IV, initially commenced this action on July 29, 2021. Dkt. 1. After screening Plaintiffs original Complaint, this Court permitted Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims to proceed to service against Defendants LiCastro, Shirback, and Sparazza, to the extent that they related to post-July 29, 2018, acts and granted leave to amend his other causes of action. Dkt. 4. On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging twelve claims against various defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for violations of state law. Dkt. 6. The Court permitted Plaintiffs Amended Complaint to proceed to service by U.S. Marshal. Dkt. 8. The case was then referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 6386(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 10.

Defendants each brought separate motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Dkt. 9, 13, 15. Plaintiff opposed Defendant Vitello’s motion to dismiss separately, Dkt. 17, and filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motions to dismiss by all named defendants. Dkt. 22. Defendants replied. Dkt. 19, 23. On March 23, 2026, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which recommended that this Court grant Defendants’ [9], [13], and [15] motions and dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, without leave to replead. See Dkt. 27 at 21.1 No party objected to Judge McCarthy’s [27] R&R. On April 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. 28, and moved for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint on April 22, 2026. Dkt. 32. Defendants objected to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in light of Judge McCarthy’s [27] R&R. Dkt. 29, 31.

On April 23, 2026, Judge McCarthy issued a second R&R which recommended that this Court deny Plaintiffs [82] motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 33 at 2.

Plaintiff objected to Judge McCarthy’s [33] R&R. Dkt. 34. He argues that the R&R “does not meaningfully analyze whether Plaintiffs proposed amendment would be futile” and that “[t]he Second Amended Complaint provides additional factual detail connecting Defendants’ actions to [the] constitutional violations.” Id. at 2,4. Defendants opposed Plaintiffs objections, Dkt. 37, 38, and Plaintiff replied.

Dkt. 39.

1 Page numbers refer to the CM/ECF generated numbering in the header of each page.

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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 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 [27] and [383] R&Rs along with the relevant record. Based on its de novo review of the R&Rs’ recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts Judge McCarthy’s recommended dispositions of Defendants’ [9], [13], and [15] motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs [32] motion for leave to amend.

For the reasons stated above and in the R&Rs, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ [9], [13], and [15] motions to dismiss and DENIES Plaintiffs [82] motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs [6] Amended Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety and without leave to amend.

The Clerk of Court shall send to Plaintiff a copy of this order and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2026 Buffalo, New York JOHN/L. SINATRA, IR.

UNVEED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE