McCarra v. Sheridan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________
PERU McCARRA,
Plaintiff,
1:25-CV-0991
v. 	(GTS/TWD)
SHEILA ANN SHERIDAN, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
PERU McCARRA
Plaintiff, Pro Se
20 Danker Avenue
Albany, New York 12206
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se action filed by Peru McCarra (“Plaintiff”)
against forty named individuals (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley
Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte
dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
(Dkt. No. 5.) 	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 Dancks’
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the
Report-Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately
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
Case 1:25-cv-00991-GTS-TWD Document 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED with
prejudice and without further Order of this Court, UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of
the entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint that corrects the
pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file a timely Amended Complaint, that Amended
Complaint shall be returned to Magistrate Judge Dancks for her review; and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff continue to fail to provide the Court with an updated
address as required by N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 10.1(c) (see Dkt. No. 5), his failure to obey the
Court’s rules and/or failure to diligently prosecute this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) shall
constitute an alternative ground for the dismissal of his action.
Dated: January 26, 2026
Syracuse, New York
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-00991-GTS-TWD Document 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 2