Winters v. N.Y.S. Police et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________
RICKY LEE WINTERS,
Plaintiff,
3:25-CV-1408
v. 	(GTS/MJK)
N.Y.S. POLICE; TROOPER J.L. SEDLACK #5538;
TIOGA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY KIRK
O’MARTIN; A.D.A. CHERYL MANCINI; TIOGA
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF
GARY HOWARD; UNKNOWN/UNNAMED TIOGA
COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPUTY; and LT. EDWARDS,
Defendants.
______________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
RICKY LEE WINTERS
Plaintiff, Pro Se
17 Main Street
Lockwood, New York 14859
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Ricky Lee Winters
(“Plaintiff”) against the Tioga County Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney Kirk O’Martin,
Assistant District Attorney Cheryl Mancini, Sheriff Gary Howard, Lieutenant Edwards, the New
York State Police, and Trooper J.L. Sedlack (“Defendants”), are (1) United States Magistrate
Judge Mitchell J. Katz’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or
alternatively for failure to state a claim; and (2) Plaintiff’s Objection, First Supplemental
Case 3:25-cv-01408-GTS-MJK Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Objection, and Second Supplemental Objection to the Report-Recommendation. 	(Dkt. Nos. 12,
13, 14, 15.) 	Although Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Objection (which is dated December 11,
2025, and postmarked December 13, 2025) is untimely, the Court has considered it, out of
special solicitude to him as a pro se civil rights litigant.
Even when construed with the utmost of special leniency, Plaintiff’s Objections contain
no specific challenge1 to any portion of the Report-Recommendation. 	(Compare Dkt. Nos. 13-
15 with Dkt. No. 12.) 	In any event, even if Plaintiff’s Objections could be liberally construed as
containing specific challenges to various portions of the Report-Recommendation, the Court
finds no error2 in such portions, and no clear error3 in the remaining portions of the Report-
1 	To be "specific," an 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." 	N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c); see also Mario v. P&C Food Markets, Inc., 313
F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Although Mario filed objections to the magistrate's report and
recommendation, the statement with respect to his Title VII claim was not specific enough to
preserve this claim for review. The only reference made to the Title VII claim was one sentence
on the last page of his objections, where he stated that it was error to deny his motion on the Title
VII claim ‘[f]or the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.' This bare statement, devoid of any reference to specific findings or
recommendations to which he objected and why, and unsupported by legal authority, was not
sufficient to preserve the Title VII claim.").
2 	When a specific objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report-
recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de novo
review. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
3 	When no specific 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 3:25-cv-01408-GTS-MJK Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Katz employed the proper standards, accurately recited the
facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. 	(See generally Dkt. No. 12.) 	As a result,
the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted for the reasons set forth therein, and
Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Katz’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice
and without leave to amend.
Dated: March 24, 2026
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01408-GTS-MJK Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 3