Zheng v. General Electric Company et al

Filing 10

DECISION AND ORDER: the Court ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation and Order (dkt. # 5 ) for the reasons stated therein. The amended complaint (dkt. # 7 ) is deemed to supercede the original complaint (dkt. # 1 ) in all respects. The Court offers no opinion on the legal viability of any of the claims asserted in the amended complaint. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 11/20/2015. (hmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------WENCHUN ZHENG, Ph.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:15-CV-1232
(TJM/CFH)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------THOMAS J. McAVOY
Senior United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This pro se employment action was referred to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel,

United States Magistrate Judge, for initial review. In his October 26, 2015 ReportRecommendation and Order, Magistrate Judge Hummel: (1) granted plaintiff’s In Forma
Pauperis application; (2) denied with leave to renew plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel; (3) recommended that all claims against the individual defendants for violations
of Title VII and the ADEA be dismissed with prejudice; (4) recommended that plaintiff’s
discrimination claims against the individual defendants be interpreted as if raised under
the New York State Human Rights Law, and that such claims be dismissed without
prejudice and with an opportunity to amend; (5) recommended that plaintiff’s defamation
claims be read as if brought under New York State common law, and that the defamation
claim against defendant Austin be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim,
and the defamation claim against defendant Craver be dismissed without prejudice with

1

plaintiff afforded an opportunity to amend; (6) recommended that plaintiff’s Title VII claims
against General Electric Company, GE Transportation, GE Power & Water, and GE
Energy Storage (GMEX Technologies, LLC) proceed; and (7) recommended that if the
Court adopted the Report-Recommendation and Order in full, plaintiff be granted thirty
(30) days from the entry of the Court’s Order to file an amended complaint in accordance
with the specifications set forth in the Report-Recommendation and Order
Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report-Recommendation and Order [dkt. #5]
but instead filed a 58-page amended complaint [dkt. # 7] that appears to principally
comply with Magistrate Judge Hummel’s recommendations.
II.

DISCUSSION
After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report -

Recommendation and Order is not subject to attack f or plain error or manifest injustice.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation and Order [dkt. # 5]

for the reasons stated therein. The amended complaint [dkt. #7] is deemed to supercede
the original complaint [dkt. # 1] in all respects. The Court offers no opinion on the legal
viability of any of the claims asserted in the amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:November 20, 2015

2