LeBarron v. Warren County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 58

DECISION AND ORDER: that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 57 ) is Accepted and Adopted in its entirety, that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 50 ) is Granted, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is Dismissed in its entirety and that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 05/06/2016. (hmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
MICHELLE A LeBARRON,
Plaintiff,
1:13-CV-1572
(GTS/CFH)

v.
WARREN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE;
NATHAN H. YORK; JAMES A. LAFARR; and
MARLO BARBOZA,
Defendants.
__________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

MICHELLE A. LeBARRON
Plaintiff, Pro Se
P.O. Box 1486
5 Mast Court
Berlin, Maryland 21811
LEMIRE, JOHNSON & HIGGINS, LLC
Counsel for Defendants
P.O. Box 2485
2534 Route 9
Malta, New York 12020

GREGG T. JOHNSON, ESQ.
BRADLEY J. STEVENS, ESQ.

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se employment discrimination action filed by
Michele LeBarron (“Plaintiff”) against the Warren County Sheriff’s Office and three of its
employees (“Defendants”) arising from Plaintiff’s termination as a corrections officer in July
2011, are the following: (1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to
prosecute and/or comply with a Court Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and/or as a
sanction for failure to appear at her deposition and failure to comply with a Court Order pursuant

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b),(d); and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s ReportRecommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted. (Dkt. Nos. 46, 53.) None
of the parties have filed objections to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to
do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers
herein, including Magistrate Judge Hummel’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can
find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the
proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a
result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set
forth therein, Defendants’ motion is granted, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed in its
entirety.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 57) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 50) is GRANTED; and it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety; and it
is further

1

When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close
this action.
Dated: May 6, 2016
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

3