White v. Roosevelt UFSD Board of ED.
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: SO ORDERED that Judge Locke's R&R (Docket Entry 48) is ADOPTED in its entirety and Defendant's motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 37) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Title VII and Section 1981 claims will proceed. However, Plaintiff's ADA and state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in an effort to assert viable claims under the ADA and state law consistent with the requ irements set forth in Judge Locke's R&R. Any Amended Complaint shall be titled Second Amended Complaint and bear the same docket number as this Order, No. 15-CV-1035(JS)(SIL). If Plaintiff wishes to pursue the ADA and state law claims, he is dir ected to file his Second Amended Complaint within sixty (60) days from the date of this Memorandum & Order. Plaintiff is cautioned that a Second Amended Complaint, if he chooses to file one, will completely replace the Amended Complaint. Therefore, a ll claims and allegations Plaintiff wishes to pursue should be included in the Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum & Order to the pro se Plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/30/2018. (CM to pro se plaintiff) (Florio, Lisa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
DOUGLAS STEWART WHITE,
FILED
CLERK
1/30/2018 2:42 pm
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Plaintiff,
-againstROOSEVELT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
15-CV-1035(JS)(SIL)
Defendant.
---------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Douglas Stewart White, pro se
989 Clinton Place
Baldwin, NY 11510
For Defendant:
Gerald Stephen Smith, Esq.
Silverman and Associates
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1102
White Plains, NY 10601
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is Defendant Roosevelt Union
Free School District Board of Education’s (“Defendant”) motion to
dismiss (Docket Entry 37) and Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke’s
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court
grant Defendant’s motion in part and deny it in part (R&R, Docket
Entry 48).
For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge
Locke’s R&R in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
On February 24, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Douglas Stewart
White (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action alleging that Defendant
discriminated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et
seq. (the “ADA”). (Compl., Docket Entry 1, at 1.) On September 8,
2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice and
with leave to file an Amended Complaint. (Sept. 2016 Order, Docket
Entry 33, at 3.)
On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
asserting claims for discrimination under Title VII, the ADA, and
42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). (Am. Compl., Docket Entry 35,
¶ 1.)
Additionally, he alleged state law claims for harassment
and slander.
(Am. Compl. ¶ 2.)
Defendant moved to dismiss on
March 9, 2017, and on October 12, 2017, the undersigned referred
the motion to Judge Locke for an R&R on whether the motion should
be granted.
(Referral Order, Docket Entry 47.)
2017, Judge Locke issued his R&R.
On December 20,
Judge Locke concluded that
Plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims for racial discrimination,
hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and for
racial discrimination under Section 1981. (R&R at 9-17.) However,
he recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA and state law
claims without prejudice and with leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint.
(R&R at 18-22.)
DISCUSSION
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
reject,
or
modify,
in
whole
or
2
in
part,
the
findings
and
recommendations
made
by
the
magistrate
judge.”
28
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).
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 Locke’s R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free of
clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
Judge Locke’s R&R (Docket Entry 48) is ADOPTED in its
entirety and Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 37) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Section 1981 claims will proceed.
Plaintiff’s Title VII and
However, Plaintiff’s ADA and
state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff is
granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in an effort to
assert viable claims under the ADA and state law consistent with
the requirements set forth in Judge Locke’s R&R.
Any Amended
Complaint shall be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and bear the
same docket number as this Order, No. 15-CV-1035(JS)(SIL). If
Plaintiff wishes to pursue the ADA and state law claims, he is
3
directed to file his Second Amended Complaint within sixty (60)
days from the date of this Memorandum & Order.
Plaintiff is
cautioned that a Second Amended Complaint, if he chooses to file
one, will completely replace the Amended Complaint.
Therefore,
all claims and allegations Plaintiff wishes to pursue should be
included in the Second Amended Complaint.
The Clerk of the Court
is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum & Order to the pro
se Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
January
30 , 2018
Central Islip, New York
4
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?