Joshua Mazyck v. Broome County Correctional Facility, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: October 23, 2025
• Docket: 9:25-cv-00216
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOSHUA MAZYCK,

Plaintiff,

-against- 9:25-CV-216 (LEK/MJK)

BROOME COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff Joshua Mazyck commenced this pro se action, in forma pauperis, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc against Broome County Correctional Facility asserting violations of Mazyck’s constitutional rights. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”); Dkt. No. 3. In May 2025, after an initial screening, this Court found that Plaintiff’s RLUIPA and Free Exercise claims against Broome County required a response. Dkt. No. 6 (“May Order”). Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 11 (“Amended Complaint”). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss thereafter, Dkt. No. 14 (“Motion”), to which the Plaintiff filed a response, Dkt. No. 19. On October 01, 2025, the Honorable Mitchell J. Katz, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(d), recommending that the Motion be granted, and that Plaintiff’s original Complaint and Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. No. 23 (“Report and Recommendation”). No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that follow, the Court therefore adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. II. BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background detailed in the Report and Recommendation. See R. & R. at 2–3. III. LEGAL STANDARD

“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also L.R. 72.1. However, if no objections are made, a district court need only review a report and recommendation for clear error. See DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.”). Clear error “is present when upon review of the entire record, the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Rivera v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 368 F. Supp. 3d 741, 744 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (cleaned up). Upon review, a 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). IV. DISCUSSION While no objections were filed to Judge Katz’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff did file a “letter agreeing [with] the recommendations set forth” in Judge’s Katz’s order. Dkt. No. 24 (“Letter”). In his Letter, Plaintiff writes as follows:

I have been studying more and lately I have been coming across a lot of Hadith about “Forgiveness.” I ask myself “How can I expect Allah to forgive me if I don’t forgive others?” With that being said I am agreeing with the Court’s recommendations on dismissing the claim. Allah is the best of planners so I will be grateful for the outcome. Thank you for all the help. I am glad they changed the soap. The Court acknowledges Plaintiff's agreement with Judge Katz’s recommendations. And, as neither party has objected to Judge Katz’s well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See DiPilato, 662 F. Supp. 2d at 339. Having found none, the Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. V. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the report and recommendation, Dkt. No. 23, is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 14, is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk close this action; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT ISSO ORDERED.

DATED: October 23, 2025 Albany, New York

United States District Judge