The opinion of the court was delivered by: Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
MEMROANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Michael Atkins ("Plaintiff") against the ten above-captioned New York State correctional employees ("Defendants"), are the following: (1) Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Allen due to Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing that claim (Dkt. No. 34); and (2) United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles' Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted (Dkt. No. 41). No objections have been filed to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, and Defendants' motion is granted.
Generally, construed with the utmost of special liberality, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that, on July 18 and July 21, 2008, while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by (1) using excessive force against him, and (2) failing to protect him from the use of excessive force. (See generally Dkt. No. 1, at ¶ 6.) For a more detailed recitation of the factual allegations giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims, the Court refers the reader to the Complaint in its entirety, and to Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation, which accurately recites those factual allegations. (Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 41, at Part 1.)
Generally, in their motion for partial summary judgment, Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Allen due to Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing that claim. (Dkt. No. 34.) More specifically, Defendants present evidence that (1) Plaintiff filed no grievance with respect to Defendant Allen's alleged failure to protect him on July 21, 2008, and/or (2) Plaintiff appealed that grievance to the Superintendent and the Central Office Review Committee. (Id.)
Generally, in his response in opposition to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff argues that (on July 22, 2008) he submitted a grievance with respect to incident on July 21, 2008, but that prison officials (other than Defendant Allen) thwarted the processing of that grievance through tampering with Plaintiff's mail. (Dkt. No. 38.)
Generally, in his Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommends that Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment be granted for the following two reasons: (1) Plaintiff's assertion that he submitted a grievance regarding the incident on July 21, 2008, is neither notarized nor properly sworn pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746; and (2) in any event, even if Plaintiff's assertion had the force and effect of sworn testimony, it would be insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact due to the exception to the rule against making credibility determinations on motions for summary judgment, set forth in Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2005). (Dkt. No. 41, at Part III.B.)
II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Standard of Review Governing a Report-Recommendation
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).*fn1
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.*fn2
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.*fn3 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.*fn4 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.*fn5
After conducting the appropriate review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the ...