Oudekerk v. Maille et al

1
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
Case 1:25-cv-00919-GTS-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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).
Case 1:25-cv-00919-GTS-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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;2 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
____________________________________
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.
Case 1:25-cv-00919-GTS-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 3