Moran v. DeAmelia et al
DECISION AND ORDER: DENYING the # 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel and ADOPTING the # 5 Report and Recommendations. The plaintiff's # 6 Objections are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's Title VII claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; Plaintiff 's ADA claims are hereby DISMISSED against Defendants Victor P. DeAmelia, Amanda Colomb, and Nicole Comstock, with prejudice; Plaintiff's ADA claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing ADA claims against a proper defendant in the future; Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages under the ADA is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; and Plaintiff's demand for compensatory and injunctive relief under the ADA ishereby DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on June 28, 2017. (Copy served via regular and certified mail to the plaintiff at 500 16th St., Apt. 203, Watervliet, NY 12189, parcel no. 7014 1200 0001 3023 0725)(rep)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THOMAS J. MORAN,
VICTOR P. DEAMELIA, AMANDA COLOMB, and
Thomas J. McAvoy,
Sr. U.S. District Judge
DECISION & ORDER
This pro se civil action, brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), was referred to the Hon.
Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).
The Report-Recommendation, dated April 20, 2017, provided the Complaint–filed in
forma pauperis–with a preliminary screening. After engaging in that screening, Magistrate
Judge Hummel recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in its entirety. The
Magistrate Judge recommended that some claims be dismissed with prejudice and some
without prejudice. He also recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
be denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. When objections to a
magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a “de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a
review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the
Plaintiff’s objections, the Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation
of Magistrate Judge Hummel for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Hummel, Dkt. # 6, are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, Dkt. #
5, is hereby ADOPTED; and:
1. Plaintiff’s Title VII claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice;
2. Plaintiff’s ADA claims are hereby DISMISSED against Defendants Victor P.
DeAmelia, Amanda Colomb, and Nicole Comstock, with prejudice;
3. Plaintiff’s ADA claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff
bringing ADA claims against a proper defendant in the future;
4. Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages under the ADA is hereby DISMISSED
5. Plaintiff’s demand for compensatory and injunctive relief under the ADA is
hereby DISMISSED without prejudice; and
6. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, dkt. # 3, is hereby DENIED without
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:June 28, 2017
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?