Dodson v. Board of Education of the Valley Stream Union Free School District et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds Judge Tomlinson's R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free of clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 5/6/2014. (Nohs, Bonnie) (Main Document 30 replaced on 5/6/2014) (Valle, Christine).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
DANA R. DODSON,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-CV-0116(JS)(AKT)

-againstBOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE VALLEY
STREAM UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
and THE VALLEY STREAM CENTRAL HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendants.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Laura M. Dilimetin, Esq.
The Law Office of Steven A. Morelli
1461 Franklin Avenue
Garden City, NY 11530
For Defendants:

Caroline Beth Lineen, Esq.
Lewis R. Silverman, Esq.
Rutherford & Christie LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10017

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen
Tomlinson’s

Report

and

record on March 14, 2014.

Recommendation

(“R&R”),

issued

on

the

The R&R recommends that the Court deny

plaintiff Dana Dodson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for a preliminary
injunction.

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

in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action against defendants the
Board of Education of the Valley Stream Union Free School District

(the “Board”) and the Valley Stream Central High School District
(the

“District”

and

together

with

the

Board,

“Defendants”),

alleging violations of his due process rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and for state law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation,
defamation, and prima facie tort.
Plaintiff was employed by the District as a teacher
beginning in 2001.
issued

(Compl. ¶ 1.)

thirty-three

On June 13, 2012, the District

disciplinary

charges

against

Plaintiff

pursuant to New York Education Law § 3020-a for his alleged
improper

conduct

towards

a

female

student.

(Compl.

¶

5.)

Plaintiff denied all wrongdoing and claimed that the student only
complained to the District because Plaintiff refused to sign a
slip of paper that would have excused the student from cutting
another teacher’s class.

(Compl. ¶ 5.)

On September 12, 2012,

Plaintiff signed a stipulation that required him to resign and
waive his right to a § 3020-a hearing.

(Compl. ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff

alleges that he was induced into signing this stipulation based on
Defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentations and that he was deprived
of due process when he waived his right to the § 3020-a hearing.
(Compl. ¶ 6.)
After Plaintiff signed the stipulation, the New York
State Board of Education (“Board of Education”) commenced an
administrative

proceeding

pursuant

to

8

N.Y.C.R.R.

regarding Plaintiff’s alleged improper conduct.
2

Part

83

(See Dilimetin

Decl., Docket Entry 16-2, ¶ 3.)

On March 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed

a motion a preliminary injunction to stay the Board of Education’s
administrative proceeding.

(Docket Entry 16.)

At the time of

Plaintiff’s motion, the administrative proceeding was scheduled to
continue with a hearing on March 25, 2014.

(Dilimetin Decl. ¶ 3.)

On March 7, 2014, the Undersigned referred Plaintiff’s
motion for a preliminary injunction to Judge Tomlinson for an R&R.
(Docket Entry 17.)

On March 14, 2014, at the conclusion of oral

argument, Judge Tomlinson read her R&R into the record.

Judge

Tomlinson’s R&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion
for a preliminary injunction on the ground that the abstention
doctrine articulated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct.
746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971) precludes the Court from staying the
state

administrative

proceeding

pending

before

the

Board

of

Education.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
reject,

or

modify,

recommendations

made

in
by

whole
the

or

in

part,

magistrate

the

judge.”

findings
28

and

U.S.C.

§ 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).

3

Objections were due within fourteen (14) days of entry
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 Tomlinson’s R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free
of

clear

error,

and

it

ADOPTS

the

R&R

in

its

entirety.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is
DENIED.

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

May
6 , 2014
Central Islip, NY

4