-ETB Farber et al v. The County of Suffolk et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Upon careful review and consideration, the ADOPTS Judge Brown's R&R in its entirety and Plaintiffs' motion to seal the case is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 2/21/2013. (c/m Plaintiffs)(Nohs, Bonnie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
WILLIAM E. FARBER; MARY F. FARBER;
individually and as the parents and
natural guardians of N.M.F.; N.M.F.,
individually,
Plaintiffs,
-againstTHE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, STATE OF NEW
YORK; OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
STEVE LEVY, individually and in his
individual capacity; THE SUFFOLK COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; LINDA
MCOLVIN, individually and in her
official capacity; JANET DEMARZO,
individually and in her official capacity;
SUFFOLK COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
BUREAU; ILVIS RODRIGUEZ, individually and
In her official capacity; MICHAEL
DELGADO, individually and in his official
capacity; MARK CLAVIN, individually and
in his official capacity; THE STATE OF
NEW YORK; OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES; DAVID PATTERSON, Chief
Executive Officer Govenor, individually
and in his official capacity; THE NEW
YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES;
GLADYS CARRION, individually and in her
official capacity; THE STATE OF NEW YORK
CENTRAL REGISTRY; DAVID R. PETERS,
individually and in his official capacity;
THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF LEGAL
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW FOR CHILDREN AND
FAMILY SERVICES, STATE OF NEW YORK;
CHARLES CARSON, individually and in his
official capacity; and EMILY BRAY,
individually and in her official capacity,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
09-CV-3255(JS)(ETB)

APPEARANCES
For Plaintiffs:

For State
Defendants:

William E. Farber, pro se
Mary F. Farber, pro se
N.M.F., pro se
135 Matthews Road
Oakdale, New York 11769
Dorothy O. Nese, Esq.
Office of the N.Y.S. Attorney General
200 Old Country Road, Suite 460
Mineola, New York 11501

For all other
Defendants:

Arlene S. Zwilling, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney
H. Lee Dennison Building
100 Veterans Memorial Highway
P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, New York 11788

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Gary R.
Brown’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), issued on January 9,
2013.

For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS this R&R in

its entirety.
BACKGROUND1
On July 29, 2009, Plaintiffs William E. Farber and
Mary J. Farber, individually and as the parents and natural
guardians

of

individually

N.M.F.

and

(collectively

L.A.F.,

and

“Plaintiffs”),

N.M.F.
brought

and
this

L.A.F.,
action

under seal against The County of Suffolk, State of New York;

1

The Court has included only those facts relevant to the pending
motion and R&R.
2

Office of the County Executive Steve Levy, individually and in
his official capacity; The Suffolk County Department of Social
Services;

Linda

McOlvin,

individually

and

in

her

official

capacity;

Janet

DeMarzo,

individually

and

in

her

official

capacity; Suffolk County Child Protective Services Bureau; Ilvis
Rodriguez, individually and in her official capacity; Michael
Delgado, individually and in his official capacity; Mark Clavin,
individually and in his official capacity; the State of New
York, Office of Children and Family Services; David Patterson,
Chief

Executive

Officer

official

capacity;

Services;

Gladys

the

Governor,
New

Carrion,

York

individually

State

individually

and

Department
and

in

in

of

her

his

Social

official

capacity; the State of New York, Central Registry; David R.
Peters, individually and in his official capacity; the New York
State Office of Legal Administrative Review for Children and
Family Services, State of New York; Charles Carson, individually
and in his official capacity; and Emily Bray, individually and
in her official capacity (collectively “Defendants”) pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, as well as various state law claims.
(Compl. ¶ 1.)

Plaintiffs brought this action to have what they

maintain were false allegations of sexual abuse removed from
various police and state records.
On

November

2,

2009,

Plaintiffs

filed

a

letter

application seeking, among other things, to voluntarily dismiss
3

the claims of minor L.A.F. and maintain the sealed status of the
action.

(Docket Entry 11.)

In a December 1, 2009 Memorandum

and Order, this Court held that case should not continue to be
sealed because one of Mr. and Mrs. Farber’s daughters was no
longer a minor, and Plaintiffs dismissed the claims of the other
minor child.

(Docket Entry 14 at 5.)

As such, this Court held

that there no longer existed “good cause” to justify maintaining
the sealed status of the case.
Plaintiffs

moved

(Id. at 5.)

for

reconsideration

of

that

Order

(Docket Entry 20), which this Court denied on September 30, 2010
(Docket Entry 25).
On February 8, 2012, during the course of discovery,
Judge Brown held a status conference.

(Docket Entry 42.)

At

that time, Plaintiffs and some of the Defendants entered into a
stipulation of settlement.

(Id.)

The relevant parties filed

their settlement agreement (Docket Entry 43) and on February 14,
2012, the Court dismissed the State of New York; the State of
New York, Central Registry; the New York State Department of
Social

Services;

and

the

New

York

State

Office

of

Legal

Administrative Review for Children and Family Services, State of
New York as defendants.

(Docket Entry 44.)

Thereafter, on May 23, 2012, Judge Brown held another
settlement conference.
conference

was

a

(Docket Entry 49.)

stipulation

of
4

The result of that

settlement

that

effectively

ended the case.

Judge Brown therefore recommended dismissal

(Docket Entry 49), and this Court entered an order dismissing
the case on May 29, 2012 (Docket Entry 51).
After

the

action

was

dismissed,

Plaintiff’s

their current motion to have the case sealed.
52.)

filed

(Docket Entry

On July 26, 2012, the Court referred Plaintiffs’ motion to

Judge Brown.
On

January

9,

recommending

that

records

documents

and

the

2012,

motion

to

associated

Judge

Brown

seal

be

with

issued

this

case

R&R

because

denied

an

the

have

been

publicly filed.
No party has objected to any portion of Judge Brown’s
R&R.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
reject,

or

modify,

recommendations

in

made

§ 636(b)(1)(C).

whole

by

the

or

in

part,

magistrate

the

findings

judge.”

28

and

U.S.C.

If no timely objections have been made, the

“court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on
the face of the record.”
606,

609-10

(S.D.N.Y.

Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d

2001)

(internal

quotation

marks

and

citation omitted).
Objections were due within fourteen (14) days of the
date of the R&R.

The time for filing objections has expired,
5

and no party has objected.

Accordingly, all objections are

hereby deemed to have been waived.
Upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds
Judge Brown’s R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned and free of
clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
Judge

Brown’s

R&R

is

ADOPTED

in

its

entirety

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the case is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

February
21 , 2013
Central Islip, New York

6

and