Wallen v. Blackrock Consulting, Inc. et al
Filing
168
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons discussed in the attached Memorandum & Order, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/12/2018. (Chu, Chan Hee)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------NOEL O. WALLEN,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
12-CV-6196 (MKB) (SJB)
v.
TEKNAVO GROUP and BLACKROCK
CONSULTING, INC.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Noel O. Wallen, proceeding pro se,1 commenced the above-captioned action
against Defendants Teknavo Group (“Teknavo”) and Blackrock Consulting, Inc. (“Blackrock”),2
alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title
VII”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”).
(Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts claims under Title VII for (1) discrimination
based on race, color, and national origin, (2) hostile work environment, and (3) retaliation. (Id.)
Plaintiff also asserts claims for disability discrimination for failure to accommodate, and
retaliation under the ADA. (Id.) On July 25, 2017, Defendants moved for summary judgment as
to all claims. (Defs. Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs. Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 140; Defs. Mem. in
Supp. of Defs. Mot. (“Defs. Mem.”), Docket Entry No. 141.)
1
Plaintiff has been represented at various times during the course of this litigation,
including at its onset. (See Compl. 14, Docket Entry No. 1.)
2
While Plaintiff sues two defendants, Teknavo and Blackrock are one and the same. In
July of 2014, Blackrock changed its name to Teknavo USA, Inc. (Tom Cox Decl. in Supp. of
Defs. Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ 2 n.1, Docket Entry No. 144.) Although they are the same entity, the
Court refers to Teknavo and Blackrock as “Defendants” for ease of reference.
On October 7, 2017, the Court referred Defendants’ motion to Magistrate Judge Sanket J.
Bulsara for a report and recommendation. (Order dated Oct. 7, 2017.) By report and
recommendation dated February 22, 2018 (the “R&R”), Judge Bulsara recommended that the
Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety. (R&R, Docket Entry. No.
165.) No party has objected to the R&R.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s recommended ruling “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). “Failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
within the prescribed time limit ‘may operate as a waiver of any further judicial review of the
decision, as long as the parties receive clear notice of the consequences of their failure to
object.’” Sepe v. N.Y. State Ins. Fund, 466 F. App’x 49, 50 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States
v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also Almonte v. Suffolk Cty., 531 F. App’x
107, 109 (2d Cir. 2013) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission
in a magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.” (quoting Cephas v.
Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003))); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis,
Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[A] party waives appellate
review of a decision in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation if the party fails to file
timely objections designating the particular issue.” (citations omitted)).
2
The Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts
the R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court grants
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
SO ORDERED:
s/ MKB
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge
Dated: March 12, 2018
Brooklyn, New York
3
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?