Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED

DOC #: _________________

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATE FILED: 2/25/2026

----------------------------------------------------------------- X

:

ALEXANDER ARCHER BROWN, :

:

Plaintiff, : 1:25-cv-4883-GHW

:

-v- : ORDER

:

DESMOND BROWN, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

:

----------------------------------------------------------------- X

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Alexander Archer Brown commenced this action pro se on June 10, 2025. Dkt.

No. 1. On July 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff asserts

violations of the Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association, conspiracy to violate civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well

as numerous state-law claims including defamation, invasion of privacy, fraud, elder abuse, and

related torts. Defendants Apple LLC, Desmond Brown, Trevor Patton, Della Patton, Asia Patton,

Marisha Gordon, Lorraine Gordon, Noel Gordon, Google LLC, White Plains Hospital, and North

Bronx Seventh-Day Adventist Church all moved to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. Nos. 24, 54, 56, 58,

62. Plaintiff filed an omnibus memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss

on September 18, 2025. Dkt. No. 68. Defendants filed their replies on September 24, 2025 and

September 25, 2025. Dkt. Nos. 70–74.

On February 10, 2026, Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis, to whom this case had been

referred for general pretrial matters and dispositive motions, issued a thoughtful and well-reasoned

report and recommendation on Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Dkt. No. 78 (the “R&R”). Judge

Willis recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ motions in full. Specifically, Judge Willis

concluded that the amended complaint is frivolous and fails to state any plausible federal claim, and

recommended that all motions to dismiss be granted and that leave to amend be denied as futile.

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “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). Parties may raise specific, written objections to the report and

recommendation within fourteen days of recetving a copy of the report. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(2). ‘The R&R specifically stated that “[flailure to file objections within fourteen days will result

in a waiver of objections ....””> R&R at 26. The Court reviews for clear error those parts of a report

and recommendation to which no party has timely objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Lewzs v. Zon,

573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

No objection to the R&R was submitted within the fourteen-day window. ‘The Court has

reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none. See Braunstein v. Barber, No. 06 Civ. 5978, 2009 WL

1542707, at *1 S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2009) (explaining that a “district court may adopt those portions of

a report and recommendation to which no objections have been made, as long as no clear error is

apparent from the face of the record”). The Court, therefore, accepts and adopts the R&R in its

entirety. Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to dismiss ace GRANTED. Plaintiff's amended

complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Leave to amend is denied. ‘The Court certifies, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and

therefore IFP status 1s denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.

438, 444-45 (1962).

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, close this case, and mail a

copy of this order to Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.

Now York, New York Ah Wand

GR ¥Y H. WOODS

United States District Judge