Williams v. City University of New York, Brooklyn College

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts Magistrate Judge Bloom's R&R in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment accordingly, and close the above-captioned ca ses. The Clerk of Court is further directed to issue a filing injunction barring Williams from bringing any further IFP proceedings against CUNY without first obtaining permission from this Court. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 8/22/2014. c/m to pro se pltf (Fernandez, Erica)

FILED

IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT e.o.N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

*

AUG 2 5 2014

*

------------------------------------------------------------x
ROBERT WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-cv-1055; 13-cv-2651; 13-cv-3618
(CBA) (LB)

CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK,
BROOKLYN COLLEGE,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------x

AMON, Chief United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Robert Williams filed three pro se actions against City University of New York,
Brooklyn College ("CUNY"). On February 7, 2014, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a Report
and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that this Court find the actions in case numbers 13cv-2651and13-cv-3618 barred by Title VI's three-year statute of limitations. The R&R
proceeded to review all of Williams' s claims on the merits and recommended that this Court
grant defendant's motions to dismiss in all three actions. Finally, the R&R recommended issuing
a filing injunction that would prevent Williams from bringing any further IFP proceedings
against CUNY in this Court without first obtaining permission from this Court, and ordered
Williams to show cause why such an injunction should not issue. Williams responded to the
order to show cause and filed his timely objections on May 30, 2014.
When deciding whether to adopt a report and recommendation, a district 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)(l)(C). To accept those portions of the R&R to which no
timely objection has been made, "a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record." Jarvis v. N. Am. Globex Fund, L.P., 823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163

(E.D.N. Y. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[T]o the extent that a party
makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments, the
court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error." Soley v. Wasserman, 823
F. Supp. 2d 221, 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotation marks and aiterations omitted); Mario
v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002). ("Merely referring the court to
previously filed papers or arguments does not constitute an adequate objection" under the federal
rules.). District courts need not consider arguments and factual assertions raised for the first time
in an objection to a report and recommendation. Forman v. Artuz, 211 F. Supp. 2d 415, 418 n.8
(S.D.N.Y 2000); see also Hynes v. Squillace, 143 F.3d 653, 656 (2d Cir. 1998) ("Considerations
of efficiency and fairness militate in favor of a full evidentiary submission for the Magistrate
Judge's consideration" and it is within the "district court's discretion ... to [refuse to] allow
supplementation of the record." (internal quotation marks omitted)). If specific objections are
made, however, "[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
(1) Motion to Dismiss
Williams raised multiple objections to the R&R, most of which repeated arguments made
before the magistrate judge or consisted of general assertions that the magistrate judge erred. In
addition, he asserted one new argument in support of his equitable tolling argument, an argument
he could have raised before the magistrate judge. Although it is not clear that Williams' s
objections warrant de novo review, in an abundance of caution this Court considered Williams's
newly raised equitable tolling argument, conducted a de !!QYQ review of the record and motions,
and adopts Magistrate Judge Bloom's recommendation under this more stringent standard.

2

(2) Filing Injunction
Magistrate Judge Bloom recommended that this Court issue a filing injunction barring
Williams from bringing any further IFP proceedings against CUNY without first obtaining
permission for this Court, and ordered Williams to show cause why such an injunction should
not issue. In response to the order to show cause Williams filed a short letter arguing that the
R&R applied the wrong standard in recommending a filing injunction and contending that the
injunction was improper in light of the fact that the three instant cases have not yet been
dismissed. 1
This Court adopts the R&R's recommendation. Restrictions on "future access to the
judicial system" may be appropriate "[i]f a litigant has a history of filing vexatious, harassing or
duplicative lawsuits." Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation
marks omitted). As Magistrate Judge Bloom noted, "Williams has filed three complaints in the
past two years, two of which are time-barred, and all of which raise nearly identical claims to
those previously dismissed by the Court." (R&R at 29.) Williams's repetitive and conclusory
lawsuits alleging discrimination and/or retaliation against CUNY have involved five complaints,
two amended complaints, and two appeals. His response to the order to show cause fails to call
the R&R's recommendation into question.

1

The full text of Williams's letter reads:
"The court has ordered me to respond to why a court injunction should not be granted pursuant to
the defendants [sic] unsubstantiated request. I the plaintiff object to this Order for the following
reasons;
I. The injunction the court would like to impose is not based on the objected regulated
elements the courts use to determine issuing a filing injunction.
2. The above mentioned cases have not final orders, are pending and have not been
deemed in accordance to the injunction elements.
3. The reasons set forth in the plaintiffs [sic] Objections to Report and
Recommendation.
Pursuant to the fact that it is obvious that this court has pre-determined it will issue an injunction
Order for plaintiff to pay for any future actions against defendant, the court is saying you can bring
as many valid lawsuits against defendant but the must be paid regardless of ability to pay."

3

(3) MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL
After Magistrate Judge Bloom issued her R&R, Williams filed a motion seeking to have
this Court recuse itself. This Court denied that motion. Williams now appeals that denial and
requests this Court stay all three actions pending his appeal. An order denying a motion to
recuse is ordinarily not appealable as a final judgment. United States v. Yonkers Bd. Of Educ.,
946 F.2d 180, 183 (2d Cir. 1991); Dubnoffv. Goldstein, 385 F.2d 717, 721 (2d Cir. 1967) ("A
determination ofa District Judge not to disqualify [her]selfis ordinarily reviewable only upon
appeal from a final decision .... "). Williams's interlocutory appeal is likely improper in the
first instance and this Court declines to stay proceedings pending the resolution of that appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts Magistrate Judge Bloom's R&R in its
entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment
accordingly, and close the above-captioned cases. The Clerk of Court is further directed to issue
a filing injunction barring Williams from bringing any further IFP proceedings against CUNY
without first obtaining permission from this Court. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis
status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45
(1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August Z2 .,-2014

s/Carol Bagley Amon
"'"Carol Bagley Arrv!!j )
"
Chief United States District Judge

4