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)

Download PDF
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

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?