Bitetto v. D'Angelo et al

Filing 6

DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 4 Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report and Recommendation in its entirety; Plaintiff's claim for monetary relief pursuant to Title III of the ADA is dismissed with prejudice; Plaintiff's # 5 Mo tion to Amend his complaint is granted; and Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint at Docket # 5 is accepted for filing, and the Clerk is directed to separately file and docket that pleading (which is already signed) as the Plaintiff's Ame nded Complaint. This action is returned to Magistrate Hummel for his management of pretrial matters, including his review of the pleading sufficiency of the Amended Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 1/27/17. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
MARCO BITETTO,
Plaintiff,
1:16-CV-1499
(GTS/CFH)

v.
MR. ADAM D’ANGELO, Partner in Quora, Inc.;
MR. CHARLIE CHEEVER, Partner in Quora, Inc.;
MR. MARC BODNICK, Partner in Quora, Inc.; and
QUORA, INC., Web Based Business,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
MARCO BITETTO
Plaintiff, Pro Se
4 Fourth Avenue
Rensselaer, New York 12144
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Marco Bitetto
(“Plaintiff”) against Quora, Inc., and three of its (“Defendants”) pursuant to Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), is United States Magistrate Judge Christian F.
Hummel’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief be
sua sponte dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) but that the remainder of
Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed without prejudice and with an opportunity to
amend. (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and
the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) Instead, Plaintiff has
filed a motion to amend his Complaint. (Dkt. No. 5.)

After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge
Hummel’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.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. Plaintiff’s claim for
monetary relief pursuant to Title III of the ADA is dismissed with prejudice. Furthermore, his
motion to amend his Complaint is granted, although the Court expresses no opinion as to
whether that Amended Complaint will survive Magistrate Judge Hummel’s review of it (or any
motion to dismiss filed by Defendants). This action is returned to Magistrate Judge Hummel for
his management of pretrial matters, including his review of the pleading sufficiency of the
Amended Complaint.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief pursuant to Title III of the ADA is
DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his Complaint (Dkt. No. 5) is GRANTED;

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

and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 5, Attach. 2) is
accepted for filing, and the Clerk of the Court shall separately file and docket that pleading
(which is already signed) as Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that this action is returned to Magistrate Judge Hummel for his management
of pretrial matters, including his review of the pleading sufficiency of the Amended Complaint.
Dated: January 27, 2017
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

3