Johnson v. N.Y.S. Division of Parole et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MELVIN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
N.Y.S. DIVISION OF PAROLE, et al.,
Defendants.
9:24-cv-167
(ECC/ML)
Appearances:
Melvin Johnson, Pro Se Plaintiff
Susanna M. Klose, Asst. Att’y Gen., for Defendant N.Y.S. Division of Parole
James A. Long, Esq., for Defendant Cayuga County
Hon. Elizabeth C. Coombe, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Melvin Johnson commenced this action pro se, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Dkt. No. 1. On May 16, 2025, Defendant Cayuga County (the County) filed a motion to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) seeking to dismiss the amended complaint. Dkt. No. 62.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the County’s motion. Dkt. No. 66. This matter was assigned to
United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric who, on September 25, 2025, issued a Report-
Recommendation and Order recommending that the County’s motion to dismiss be denied. Dkt.
No. 81. Magistrate Judge Lovric advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had
fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report and that the failure to object to
the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Dkt. No. 81 at 17. No objections
to the Report-Recommendation have been filed.
Case 9:24-cv-00167-ECC-ML Document 98 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 2

2
As no objection to the Report-Recommendation has been filed, and the time for filing
objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See
Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee’s note to 1983 amendment.
Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court
adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 81, is
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Cayuga County’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 62, is DENIED;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on
the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2026
Case 9:24-cv-00167-ECC-ML Document 98 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 2