Phillips v. City of New York
Filing
35
DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Objection is overruled and this Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Bloom's Report and Recommendation of September 11, 2013 in its entirety. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 3/12/2014. Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-00098-WFK-LB, 1:12-cv-00237-WFK-LB, 1:13-cv-00791-WFK-LB (Brucella, Michelle)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
NICOLE PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of
B.P. and S.P., minors,
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
12-cv-98 (WFK) (LB)
-againstCITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
FABIAN MENDOZA-VACA, individually and on
behalf of MM and VM, minors,
Plaintiff,
12-cv-237 (WFK) (LB)
-againstCITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
DINA CHECK, on behalf of minor MC,
Plaintiff,
13-cv-791 (WFK) (LB)
-againstNEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge
On September 11, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that this Court deny Plaintiffs second motion for a preliminary
injunction. Dkt. No. 37 ("the Recommendation"). On September 23, 2013, Plaintiff timely
objected to the Recommendation, arguing that the Court's reliance on controlling authority was
"in error" and that this Court should retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim. Dkt. No.
38 ("Plaintiffs Objection") at 8, 10. For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Bloom's
Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety.
The facts in this action are meticulously detailed in Magistrate Judge Bloom's
Recommendation, and will not be restated here. See Dkt. No. 3 7.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation "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)(l)(C); see also McGrigs v. Killian, No. 08-cv-6238, 2009 WL
3762201, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2009) (Berman, J.). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Rule
72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may submit "specific written
objections" to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation "[w]ithin 14 days after being
served with a copy of the recommended disposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). Reports and recommendations on dispositive matters are reviewed de
nova. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Because a "Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is dispositive,"
Magistrate Judge Bloom's Recommendation advising that this Court deny Plaintiffs motion will
be reviewed de nova. Mitchell v. Century 21 Rustic Realty, 233 F. Supp. 2d 418, 430 (E.D.N.Y.
2002) (Platt, J.) ajf'd, 45 F. App'x 59 (2d Cir. 2002). "The district court need not, however,
specifically articulate its reasons for rejecting a party's objections or for adopting a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation in its entirety." Morris v. Local 804, Int 'l Bhd. Of
Teamsters, 167 F. App'x 230, 232 (2d Cir. 2006).
As articulated in the Recommendation, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction a
plaintiff must demonstrate: "(a) irreparable harm and (b) either (I) likelihood of success on the
merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for
litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the
preliminary relief." Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d
206, 215 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted). Magistrate Judge Bloom's report carefully
detailed the facts relevant to plaintiff's motion and methodically considered each of the criteria
in light of the parties' arguments and analogous case law. Ultimately, she concluded that "New
York state law provides the process by which plaintiff may seek relief' and therefore "this Court
should decline to address plaintiffs claim for a medical exemption here." Dkt. No. 37 at 10.
Plaintiff opposes the Recommendation on the ground that "[t]he denial of the medical
exemption violates Plaintiffs substantive due process rights protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment, and Plaintiffs rights of privacy and bodily autonomy protected in the Ninth
Amendment." Dkt. No. 38 at 7. Yet instead of explaining why the Fourteenth and Ninth
Amendments control her medically-based motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff focuses
her efforts almost entirely on attempting to distinguish Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11
(1905), and even challenging it as "old, outdated law." Dkt. No. 38 at 7-10. This approach is
mistaken because Magistrate Judge Bloom did not rely on Jacobson at all in the
Recommendation. Rather, Magistrate Judge Bloom held that "[b]ecause defendant's denial of [a
New York state] statutory exemption is based entirely on state law, this Court should not reach
the merits of plaintiffs claim for a medical exemption." Dkt. No. 3 7 at 8. Plaintiff does not
rebut this compelling conclusion by the Court. Plaintiff also does not elaborate how any federal
rights are at issue in her pursuit of a state medical exemption, besides a bare allusion to
Fourteenth and Ninth Amendment constitutional rights. Dkt. No. 38 at 7. Moreover, Plaintiff
stated in her objections that she "acknowledges that if all federal claims are dismissed, her statelaw claim seeking a medical exemption could be dismissed without prejudice." Dkt. No. 38 at
I 0. Because "Plaintiffs claim that vaccinations are medically contraindicated ... is a pure state
law claim," and "[b ]ecause New York state law provides the process by which plaintiff may seek
relief," Magistrate Judge Bloom was correct to decline to address Plaintiffs claim for a medical
exemption. Dkt. No. 37 at 8, 10.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Objection is overruled and this Court hereby
ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Bloom's Report and Recommendation of September 11, 2013 in its
entirety. Therefore, Plaintiffs Motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
SO ORDERED
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 12, 2014
s/WFK
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?