Ball v. Criminal Investigations Department et al

Filing 8

DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T Suddaby on 6/4/2024. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular and certified mail)(sal )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________
DENYALL BALL,
Plaintiff,
5:24-CV-0438
(GTS/TWD)

v.
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DEPT., and
WATERTOWN POLICE DEPT.
Defendants.
______________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
DENYALL BALL
Plaintiff, Pro Se
423 South Hamilton Street
Watertown, New York 13601
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Denyall Ball
(“Plaintiff”) against the Criminal Investigations Department and the Watertown Police
Department (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ ReportRecommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the ReportRecommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally, Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-

Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Dancks 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 is
dismissed with prejudice.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Dated: June 4, 2024
Syracuse, New York

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).
2