Perry v. Cuevas et al

Filing 12

DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) shall be sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of the Court if, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff does not file an AMENDED COMPLAINT curing the pleading defects identified in his original Complaint. Upon filing, the Amended Complaint shall automatically b e referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for his review. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 11/18/2021. (Copy served upon plaintiff via certified and regular mail at last known address P.O. Box 943, 1027 Jay Street, Ogdensburg, NY 13669 and by regular mail to St. Lawrence County Correctional Facility, 17 Commerce Lane, Canton, NY 13617)(sal)

Case 8:21-cv-00971-GTS-DJS Document 12 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
MELVIN PERRY, a/k/a MELVIN H. PERRY,
Plaintiff,
1:21-CV-0971
(GTS/DJS)

v.
MICHAEL R. CUEVAS; ALICIA LENDON;
JUDE MAIN, JR.; DISTRICT ATTORNEY PASQUA,
and AARON EDWARDS,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
MELVIN PERRY
Plaintiff, Pro Se
P.O. Box 943
1027 Jay Street
Ogdensburg, New York 13669
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Melvin Perry
(“Plaintiff”) against the five above-named individuals (“Defendants”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1983, is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed with leave to amend. (Dkt.
No. 6.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by
which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart’s
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-

Case 8:21-cv-00971-GTS-DJS Document 12 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 2

Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Stewart 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 set forth therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be sua sponte DISMISSED
with prejudice and without further Order of the Court if, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the
date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff does not file an AMENDED COMPLAINT curing the
pleading defects identified in his original Complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that, upon filing, the Amended Complaint shall automatically be referred to
Magistrate Judge Stewart for his review.
Dated: November 18, 2021
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