The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
Currently before the Court are Magistrate Judge Treece's March 4, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order, see Dkt. No. 25, and Plaintiff's objections thereto, see Dkt. No. 26.
Plaintiff Thomas Dorsey commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, while he was involuntarily committed for treatment at the Central New York Psychiatric Center ("CNYPC"), Defendants denied him access to the courts and subjected him to certain unlawful policies and treatment under CNYPC's civil confinement sex offender treatment program. See generally Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, in which he sought to enjoin Defendants from enforcing Article 10 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law against him, which provides for the involuntary civil commitment and treatment of certain individuals convicted of committing sex crimes. See generally Dkt. No. 18. Defendants filed a response in opposition thereto. See Dkt. No. 19.
On March 23, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), see Dkt. No. 12; and Plaintiff opposed that motion, see Dkt. No. 15. In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated March 4, 2011, Magistrate Judge Treece recommended that this Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss, deny Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, and dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. Magistrate Judge Treece found that, given Plaintiff's ongoing and pending Article 10 state-court civil confinement proceeding, the Younger*fn1 abstention doctrine applied, thereby warranting dismissal of Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and his claims for injunctive relief in his amended complaint, and that Plaintiff's other claims were likewise without merit. See Dkt. No. 25. Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Judge Treece's recommendation. See Dkt. No. 26.
Where a party makes specific objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court conducts a de novo review of those recommendations. See Trombley v. Oneill, No. 8:11-CV-0569, 2011 WL 5881781, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). Where a party makes no objection or makes only conclusory or general objections, however, the court reviews the report and recommendation for "clear error" only. See Salmini v. Astrue, No. 3:06-CV-458, 2009 WL 1794741, *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009) (quotation omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, a district court may decide to accept, reject, or modify those recommendations. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).
All of Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation and Order are vague, conclusory, and general. Therefore, the Court has reviewed the record for "clear error;" and, having found none, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Treece's March 4, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.