Hilts v. Ahmed-Saif et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JAHEEM R. HILTS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	1:26-cv-00286 (AMN/DJS)
TAHSINA AHMED-SAIF and DR.
BHARAT B. LANGER,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
JAHEEM R. HILTS
845 Broadway – Apartment 324
Schenectady, New York 12305
Plaintiff pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On February 23, 2026, plaintiff pro se Jaheem R. Hilts (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action
against defendants Tashina Ahmed-Saif and Dr. Bharat B. Langer (together, “Defendants”),
asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) and New York state law. Dkt. No. 1.
Plaintiff sought and received leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 2, 5.
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart, who reviewed
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and, on March 27, 2026, recommended that the
Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. 	Dkt. No. 6 (“Report-
Recommendation”). Magistrate Judge Stewart advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
parties had fourteen days within which to file written objections and that failure to object to the
Case 1:26-cv-00286-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Report-Recommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. 	Id. at 7-8. 1
Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation on April 10, 2026. Dkt. No. 7.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its
entirety and dismisses the Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation
that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “To be
‘specific,’ the objection must, with particularity, ‘identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings,
recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.’”
Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting
N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 72.1(c)). 	If no specific objections have been filed, this Court reviews a
magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. 	See Petersen, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 229.
Similarly, when a party files “[g]eneral or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite
the same arguments [previously] presented to the magistrate judge,” the district court reviews a
magistrate judge’s report-recommendations for clear error. 	O’Diah v. Mawhir, No. 08-cv-322,
2011 WL 933846, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations omitted); accord Mario v. P & C
Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (a “statement, devoid of any reference to
specific findings or recommendations to which [the plaintiff] objected and why, and unsupported
by legal authority, was not sufficient to preserve” a claim); Petersen, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 228-29 &
n.6 (collecting cases). “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.’”
1 Citations to docket entries utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system, and not the documents’ internal pagination.
Case 1:26-cv-00286-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Dezarea W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-cv-01138, 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar.
17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-0367, 2017 WL 5484663, at *1 n.1
(N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)).
“[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than
that accorded to ‘formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289,
295 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (additional citations
omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to “make reasonable allowances
to protect pro se litigants” from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a
legal education. Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). That said, “even a
pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at
particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal . . . .” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-cv-13320, 2011
WL 3809920, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No.
22-cv-567, 2022 WL 16918287, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). After appropriate review, “the
court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
III. 	DISCUSSION
The Court adopts those aspects of the Report-Recommendation to which no party has
raised a specific objection, finding no clear error therein, including the background and the legal
framework set forth in the Report-Recommendation, familiarity with which is presumed for
purposes of this decision.
As detailed in the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff alleges that he is “‘The Satanic Pope’
and that ‘[t]aking medication against [his] will is against [his] religion’” and that Defendants “keep
Case 1:26-cv-00286-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 5

4
making up lies in their paperwork to keep [Plaintiff] on Court ordered medication.” Dkt. No. 6 at
2 (alterations in original) (quoting Dkt. No. 1 at 2).
Magistrate Judge Stewart first determined that Plaintiff had failed to state a Section 1983
claim because Plaintiff had not alleged any state action by either Defendant. Id. at 4-5; see also
Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961, 964 (2d Cir. 2015) (“To avoid sua sponte dismissal of a § 1983
claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant was a state actor, i.e., acting under color of
state law, when he committed the violation and (2) the defendant deprived the plaintiff of ‘rights,
privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.’”) (citation
omitted). 	In the absence of viable federal claim, Magistrate Judge Stewart next recommended
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim against non-diverse
parties. 	Dkt. No. 6 at 5-6. 	Finally, given the substantive defects with Plaintiff’s allegations,
Magistrate Judge Stewart recommending denying leave to amend. Id. at 6-7.
Plaintiff’s two-sentence submission in response to the Report-Recommendation offers a
cursory objection to these findings and provides “a photo copy of [his] book The Satanic Pope
Enlightenment brief Masonic Philosophy, which can be purchased on” various websites. Dkt. No.
7 at 1. 	Because Plaintiff’s objection is general and conclusory, the Court reviews the Report-
Recommendation for clear error, and finds none. Caldwell, 2022 WL 16918287, at *2. As a result,
the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 6, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
Case 1:26-cv-00286-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 04/22/26 Page 4 of 5

5
ORDERS that the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice and without
leave to amend; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules and close this case.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 22, 2026
Albany, New York
2 The Clerk shall also provide Plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions cited herein.
Case 1:26-cv-00286-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 04/22/26 Page 5 of 5