The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
SHAWN EGGSWARE,
Plaintiff,
1:22-CV-0868
v. (GTS/DJS)
GOOGLE; INSTAGRAM; STEFANIE JOANNE
ANGELINA GERMANOTTA; CHRISTOPHER
MAURICE BROWN; KANYE OMARI WEST;
WILLARD CARROL SMITH, JR.; ELLA-MARIJA
LANI YELICH-O-CONNOR; THOMAS JEFFREY
HANKS; STEPHEN TYRONE COLBERT; KALEY
CUOCO; ERIC MARLON BISHOP; MATTHEW
DAVID McCONAUGHEY; CARLY RAE JEPSEN;
JERRY ANGELO BROOKS; and LARRY DAVID,
Defendants.
________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
SHAWN EGGSWARE
Plaintiff, Pro Se
66 2nd Street
Waterford, NY 12188
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Shawn Eggware
(“Plaintiff”) against the fifteen above-captioned entities and individuals (“Defendants”), is
United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that
Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim with prior leave to
amend. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and
the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully
reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart’s thorough Report-
Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation:1 Magistrate
Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately 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 set forth therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) 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 from
the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT correcting the
pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further
ORDERED that any Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff must be a complete pleading
that supercedes and replaces his original Complaint in all respects; and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint within the above-
referenced thirty (30) day time period, the Amended Complaint shall be referred to Magistrate
Judge Stewart for further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
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 t 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).
2
Dated: October 11, 2022
Syracuse, New York
Glenn T. Suddaby
U.S. District Judge