LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 24, 2013, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Northern District of New York Local Rule 72.3(d). Dkt. No. 68 ("Report-Recommendation").
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). A court is to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where, however, an objecting "party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, [a court] reviews [a report-recommendation] only for clear error." Farid v. Bouey , 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen , 517 F.Supp.2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)); see also Brown v. Peters, No. 95-CV-1641 , 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997). "A [district] judge... 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).
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report-Recommendation on June 27, 2013, more than two weeks after the deadline. Dkt. No. 69 ("Objections"); see also Report-Rec. Although the Court accepts the late objections because Plaintiff is currently incarcerated and proceeding pro se, the Court nonetheless concludes that the objections are general, rather than specific, and therefore warrant only clear-error review. See generally Objs. After a thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the record, the Court determines that the Report-Recommendation is not clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 68) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants' First Motion (Dkt. No. 59) for summary judgment is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the ...