Harrison v. SUNY Downstate Medical Center et al

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons set forth in the attached written ORDER,the Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Pollak's lengthy, thorough and well-reasoned R&R for clear error and, finding none, concurs with the R&R i n its entirety. As such, Harrisons motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 42 ) is denied in all respects.This action is committed to Magistrate Judge Pollak for all further pre-trial proceedings. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 8/24/2018. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
GISELLE HARRISON,
Plaintiff,
- against -

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
16-CV-1101 (RRM) (CLP)

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK DOWNSTATE
MEDICAL CENTER and ANTHONY PARKER,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Giselle Harrison brought this action against her employer, State University of
New York Downstate Medical Center (“SUNY”), and her supervisor, Anthony Parker, alleging
workplace discrimination on the basis of sex and disability and alleging retaliation after she
lodged complaints. (Compl. (Doc. No. 1).) Harrison initially brought causes of action under
federal, state, and local statutes, but subsequently withdrew several claims by an amendment to
her complaint and a subsequent letter. (Am. Compl. (Doc. No. 19); 8/22/2016 Letter (Doc. No.
23).) Defendants moved to dismiss Harrison’s remaining claims, and this Court granted that
motion, save for Harrison’s claims of retaliation and improper medical inquiries against SUNY
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 28);
Mem. & Order (Doc. No. 35).)
Harrison now seeks leave to amend her complaint a second time (Mot. to Amend Compl.
(Doc. No. 42); Proposed Second Am. Compl. (Doc. No. 43-8).), and defendants have opposed
the amendment. (Opp’n (Doc. No. 45).) The motion was referred to the Honorable Cheryl L.
Pollak, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny
Harrison’s motion in its entirety. Judge Pollak reminded the parties that, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 72(b), any objections to the R&R must be filed within 14 days.

(R&R at 32.) No party has filed an objection, and the time to do so has expired.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72, the Court has reviewed the lengthy,
thorough and well-reasoned R&R for clear error and, finding none, concurs with the R&R in its
entirety. See Covey v. Simonton, 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). As such,
Harrison’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is denied in all respects.
This action is committed to Magistrate Judge Pollak for all further pre-trial proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Roslynn R. Mauskopf

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 24, 2018

____________________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

2