The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Jeremy Santiago ("Plaintiff") against K. Holden ("Defendant"), are (1) Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and/or for summary judgment, and (2) United States Magistrate Judge David R. Homer's Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant's motion be granted and that Plaintiff's action be dismissed. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 15.) For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Defendant's motion is granted; and Plaintiff's action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
Construed with the utmost of liberality, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that, while he was incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility ("Great Meadow C.F.") in Comstock, New York, Defendant violated his rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution by denying him the right to practice his religion, subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment, and retaliating against him for filing a grievance. (See generally Dkt. No. 1, at IV.) Familiarity with the factual allegations supporting these claims are assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review by the parties. (Id. at IV.)
On August 9, 2011, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and/or for summary judgment for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this action; (2) Plaintiff has failed to state either a retaliation or religious discrimination claim; and (3) Defendant is entitled to both Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity. (Dkt. No. 9, Points I-V.)*fn1
On August 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to Defendant's motion. (Dkt. No. 12.) On September 14, 2011, the Court received from Plaintiff an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 14.) The Amended Complaint was substantially the same as Plaintiff's original Complaint, asserting identical causes of action and no additional factual allegations. (Compare Dkt. No. 1 with Dkt. No. 14.)
On November 29, 2011, Magistrate Judge Homer issued an Order and Report-Recommendation rejecting Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as futile and recommending that Defendant's motion be granted. (Dkt. No. 15.) Familiarity with the grounds of Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for the review of the parties. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
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). To be "specific," the objection must, with particularity, "identify  the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and  the basis for the objection." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c).*fn2 When performing such a de novo review, "[t]he judge may . . . receive further evidence. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court will ordinarily refuse to consider evidentiary material that could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance.*fn3
When only a general objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2),(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition.*fn4 Similarly, when an objection merely reiterates the same arguments made by the objecting party in its original papers submitted to the magistrate judge, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation challenged by those arguments to only a clear error review.*fn5 Finally, when no objection is made to a portion of a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the 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.*fn6
After conducting the 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).
Because Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation and the time in which to do so has expired, the Court need review the Report-Recommendation for only clear error, pursuant to the standard of review recited above in Part II.A of this Decision and Order. After doing so, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Homer's thorough Report-Recommendation is not clearly erroneous.(Dkt. No. 15 [Report-Recommendation].) Magistrate Judge Homer employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. ...