Qureshi v. Nassau BOCES et al

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Wall's Report is adopted as an Order of the Court. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings 47 is granted, and plaintiff's complaint is di smissed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U S 438, 444-45(1962). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case and, pursuant to Rule 77(d)(1) of the FRCP, serve notice of entry of this Order upon all parties including by mailing a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff at her last known address, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(C). So Ordered. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 5/1/2013. (a copy of this Order has been sent to pro se plaintiff on 5/2/2013) (Padilla, Kristin)

FlLED
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U S DISTRICT COURT E D NY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------)(
NAILA M. QURESHI,

*

,,AY 0 1 2013

*

LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Plaintiff,

ORDER
11-CV-2444 (SJF) (WDW)
-againstNASSAU BOARD OF COOPERATIVE
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES,
Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------)(
FEUERSTEIN, J.
On May 17, 2011, pro se plaintiff Nail a M. Qureshi ("plaintiff') commenced this action
against the Nassau Board of Cooperative Education Services ("defendant"), alleging violations
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the "ADEA''), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634.
[Docket Entry No. 1]. On April23, 2012, the Court granted defendant's unopposed motion for
judgment on the pleadings, dismissing plaintiff's complaint and granting plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint with respect to her unlawful termination claim. [Docket Entry No. 34]. The
Court advised plaintiff that the amended complaint must "contain sufficient allegations to state
her claim that her termination violated Title VII and/or the ADEA." Id. On May 9, 2012,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, [Docket Entry No. 36] ("Am. Compl."), and defendant
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on February 1, 2013, [Docket Entry No. 47] (the
"motion").
Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (the "Report") of Magistrate
Judge William D. Wall dated March 13,2013 recommending that the motion be granted.

1

[Docket Entry No. 50]. Plaintiff has filed a timely objection to the Report. [Docket Entry No.
51] ("Objection"). For the following reasons, the Objection is overruled, and the Court adopts
Magistrate Judge Wall's Report in its entirety.
I.

Standard of Review
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a magistrate judge to conduct

proceedings of dispositive pretrial matters without the consent of the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). Any portion of a report and recommendation on dispositive matters to which a timely
objection has been made is reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
However, "when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the
original arguments, the Court will review the report strictly for clear error." Frankel v. City of
New York, Nos. 06 Civ. 5450, 07 Civ. 3436, 2009 WL 465645, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2009).
The Court is not required to review the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to which no proper objections are interposed. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985). To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter
to which no timely objection has been made, the district judge need only be satisfied that there is
no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Johnson v. Goord, 487 F.
Supp.2d 377, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd, 305 Fed App'x 815 (2d Cir. Jan. 9, 2009); Baptichon v.
Nevada State Bank, 304 F. Supp.2d 451,453 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), aff'd, 125 Fed. App'x 374 (2d
Cir. Apr. 13, 2005). Whether or not proper objections have been filed, the district judge may,
after review, accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
II.

Plaintiff's Objection
Plaintiff has failed to raise objections to Magistrate Judge Wall's specific conclusions in

2

the Report and instead merely restates her general claim of unlawful termination and argues
b t t date has not specified the nature of
h ] 1·
(1) that "the court seeks more evidence of [ er c mms, u o
evidence it is seeking and furthermore has not allowed discovery," and (2) that she "has provided
evidence of employment and termination accompanied with the absence of any due process
proceeding or administrative detail." Objection at 2.
Plaintiff's argument that her inability to conduct discovery precludes the granting of
defendant's motion is without merit. Magistrate Judge Wall has recommended that defendant's
motion be granted due to plaintiff's failure to "set forth factual circumstances from which the
court can infer discrimination on the basis of protected status," not due to the absence of
admissible evidence of discrimination. Report at 6 ("To survive a motion to dismiss, as opposed
to a motion for summary judgment, a Title VII plaintiff need not establish a prima facie case of
employment discrimination with admissible evidence."); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) ("To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."') (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The purpose of a motion to dismiss "is to
test, in a streamlined fashion, the formal sufficiency of the plaintiff's statement of a claim for
relief without resolving a contest regarding its substantive merits. The Rule thus assesses the
legal feasibility of the complaint, but does not weigh the evidence that might be offered to
support it." Global Network Commc'ns, Inc. v. City ofN.Y., 458 F.3d 150, 155 (2d Cir.2006).
Therefore, plaintiff is required to allege a plausible claim to relief before engaging in discovery.
See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 ("[T]he doors of discovery [are not unlocked] for a plaintiff armed
with nothing more than conclusions.").
Plaintiff's argument that she has adequately pleaded "evidence of employment and

3

. .
. d "th the absence of any due process proceeding or administrative
termmatwn accompame Wl
. . in the amended complaint identified by Magistrate
detail" does not address the defilCiencies
.
c. •
of discriminatory termination in violation of Title VII,
Judge Wall. To state a pnma lacle case
.
f
t cted class; (2) she was qualified for the
.
laintiff must show that: ( 1) she IS a member o a pro e
f . and (4) the adverse actwn took
p
..
h h ld· (3) she suffered an adverse employment ac Ion,
positiOn s e e '
.
f
. .
.
. ference of discrimination. RUlZ v. Cnty. o
. . "
place under circumstances giving nse to an m

Rockland, 609 F.3d 486,492-93 (2d Cir. 2010). Magistrate Judge Wall found that plamttff has
t action" but that "she has not met
adequately pled her national origin and an adverse emp1oymen
her burden of pleading her qualifications or circumstances that give rise to an inference of
discrimination." Report at 6-7. The Court agrees that the amended complaint, even construed
liberally, fails to make factual allegations from which a discriminatory motivation may be
inferred. The only specific factual aiiegation in the amended complaint is that a school
administrator responded inadequately to plaintiff's complaint about discriminatory comments
made by a student. Am. Compl. at~ 4. This aiiegation does not give rise to an inference that
plaintiff's termination was motivated by discriminatory animus, and the remainder of plaintiff's
allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a plausible claim to relief. Accordingly, the
Court adopts Magistrate Judge Wall's conclusion that plaintiff has failed to allege a prima facie
case of discriminatory termination in violation of Title VII.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Wall's Report is adopted as an order of the

Court. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [Docket Entry No. 47] is granted, and
plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis

4

_,

·-.
status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,
444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case and, pursuant to
Rule 77(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, serve notice of entry of this Order upon all
parties, including by mailing a copy of the Order to the pro se plaintiff at her last known address,
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein
-

Sandra J. Feueistem
United States District Judge
Dated: May 1, 2013
Central Islip, New York

5