Williams v. Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center et al

Filing 61

ORDER ADOPTING 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying Plaintiff's 35 Motion to file Second Amended Complaint. The court DISMISSES Williams's breach of contract claim pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 2/16/2012. (Lee, Tiffeny)

o;;:
FILED

IN CLERK'S OFFICE
US DISTRICT COURT E. D. NY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------)(

* FEB212012 *

BROOKLYN OFFICE

VALERIE WILLIAMS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
10-CV-1429 (NGG) (LB)
-against-

WOOHDULL MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
CENTER; NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LANGONE
MEDICAL CENTER MILLHAUSER LABS; CITY
OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY HEALTH
AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION; EDWARD
FISHKIN, M.D.; LEONEL URCUYO, M.D.; and
PAUL H. KASTELL, M.D.,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- )(
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
On March 30,2010, Plaintiff Valerie E. Williams r·Williams'') filed a Complaint against
Defendants Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center, New York University Langone Medical
Center Millhauser Labs, City ofNew York, New York City Health and Hospital Corporation,
Edward Fishkin, Leone! Urcuyo, and Paul H. Kastell (collectively "'Defendants"). (Compl.

(Docket Entry# 1).) Williams filed her complaint prose; but later acquired an attomey. 1 (See
Notice of Appearance of Anthony L. Pendergrass (Docket Entry# 24).) After doing so, Wiliams
filed an Amended Complaint on consent. (Docket Entry# :!6.) The parties engaged in discovery
(see.~.

Stipulation and Protective Order (Docket Entry# 30)), and Defendants then sought leave

to move for summary judgment (see Pre-Motion Conference Request (Docket Entry# 32)). The
Williams's attorney subsequently moved for leave to withdraw from the case. (Mot. to Withdraw as Att'y
(Docket Entry# 40).) Magistrate Judge Bloom denied that motion. (Dec. 27,2011 Order (Docket Entry# 42).)
Williams's attorney has continued to represent her after Judge Bloom's Order. (See. e.g., Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to
Summ. 1. (Docket Entry# 58-2) at 12.)

court referred that request to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for decision and for a settlement
conference. (Docket Entry# 33.) Judge Bloom anempted to mediate a senlement; however,
when those efforts did not succeed, Judge Bloom set a schedule for Defendants to move for
summary judgment and for Williams to move to further amend her complaint. (Aug. 8, 2011
Order.) Williams so moved (Docket Entry# 35), and the court referred Williams's motion to
Judge Bloom (Docket Entry of Oct. 28, 20 II.) On January 31, 2012, Judge Bloom issued her
Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the court deny Williams's motion to
amend. (R&R (Docket Entry# 44) at 8.) Judge Bloom also noted that one of the ways in which
Williams wished to amend her complaint was to delete her breach of contract claim; Judge Bloom
recommends that the court dismiss that claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(2)
rather than permit an amendment solely for that purpose. (I d.)
No party has objected to Judge Bloom's R&R, and the time to do so has passed. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Accordingly, the court reviews Judge Bloom's R&R for clear error. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Having reviewed Judge Bloom's R&R, the court adopts it in its entirety.
See Porter v. Potter, 219 F. App ·x 112 (2d Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the court DENIES
Williams's motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. The court DISMISSES Wiliams's
breach of contract claim pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(2).
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
i'JJCHOLAS G. GARAUFIY
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February I~ ,2012

2