Jones v. Bay Shore Union Free School District et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brown's R&R (Docket Entry 79) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees (Docket Entry 66) is DENIED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 9/11/2017. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHARLES W. JONES,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
-againstBAY SHORE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
PETER J. DION, EVELYN BLOISE HOLMAN,
and ROBERT PASHKEN,
E. Christopher Murray, Esq.
Laura Nazginov, Esq.
Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.
East Tower, 15th Floor
1425 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
Steven C. Stern, Esq.
Kaitlyn Rose McKenna, Esq.
Mark A. Radi, Esq.
Susan Hull Odessky, Esq.
Sokoloff Stern LLP
179 Westbury Avenue
Carle Place, NY 11514
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are: (1) Bay Shore Union Free
School District, Peter J. Dion, Evelyn Bloise Holman, and Robert
Pashken’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion for attorneys’ fees
(Fee Mot., Docket Entry 66), and (2) Magistrate Judge Gary R.
Brown’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (R&R, Docket Entry 79)
recommending that this Court deny Defendants’ motion.
following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge Brown’s R&R in its
Plaintiff commenced this action on August 14, 2012,
alleging violations of his constitutional rights under the United
States and New York Constitutions and intentional infliction of
(Compl., Docket Entry 1, ¶¶ 36-49.)
March 16, 2016, this Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims.
(SJ Order, Docket
On December 20, 2016, the Second Circuit affirmed the
judgment in favor of Defendants.
(Mandate, Docket Entry 61.)
Having prevailed, Defendants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 on February 9, 2017.
On April 12,
2017, the undersigned referred the motion to Judge Brown for a
report and recommendation on whether the motion should be granted,
and if necessary, to determine the appropriate amount of fees and
costs to be awarded.
(Referral Order, Docket Entry 75.)
recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ motion for fees. (R&R
He found that “[a]t each stage of the litigation, judicial
review established that, due to the complexities of these claims,
there were at least some potentially meritorious--or at least
justiciable--aspects of plaintiff’s case.”
(R&R at 5.)
determined that Plaintiff’s abandonment of several claims weighed
against awarding attorneys’ fees to Defendants.
(R&R at 6.)
Finally, Judge Brown concluded that the documentation submitted by
Defendants was deficient in certain respects.
(R&R at 6-7.)
a result, he concluded that Defendants failed to establish that
they were entitled to attorneys’ fees under section 1988.
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
§ 636(b)(1)(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.”
Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10
(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Objections were due within fourteen (14) days of service
of the R&R.
The time for filing objections has expired, 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.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brown’s R&R (Docket
Entry 79) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
Defendants’ motion for
attorneys’ fees (Docket Entry 66) is DENIED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
11 , 2017
Central Islip, New York
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?