Pearson v. Renaissance Hotel Albany et al
Filing
7
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 5 Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's Title VII claims against Defendants Milstein and Perry are sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice. The remainder o f Plaintiff's Complaint shall be DISMISSED unless, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint that cures the pleading defects identified by Magistrate Judge Stewart in his Report-Recommen dation; and it is furtherORDERED that any Amended Complaint. Any Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff shall be a complete pleading that supersedes and replaces (and does not incorporate by reference) her original Complaint, and shall not re-assert he r Title VII claims against Defendants Milstein and Perry (which have been dismissed with prejudice). Should Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint within the referenced thirty-day time period, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for his review. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 4/2/18. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
SHADAYAH PEARSON,
Plaintiff,
1:17-CV-1189
(GTS/DJS)
v.
RENAISSANCE HOTEL ALBANY;
BARBARA MILSTEIN, Housekeeping Manager; and
DAVID PERRY, Human Resource Director,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
SHADAYAH PEARSON
Plaintiff, Pro Se
599 River Street, #7001
Troy, New York 12180
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this employment civil rights action filed pro se by
Shadayah Pearson (“Plaintiff”) against the Renaissance Hotel Albany and two of its employees
(“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation
recommending that (1) Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against the two above-described employees be
sua sponte dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and (2) the remainder of
Plaintiff’s Complaint (asserting a Title VII claim against the Renaissance Hotel Albany and
NYHRL claims against the Renaissance Hotel and the two above-described employees) be
dismissed for failure to state a claim unless she files an Amended Complaint that includes any
right-to-sue letter that she has obtained from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) before bringing this action to federal court. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff has filed an
Objection that, instead of asserting a specific challenge to the Report-Recommendation, attaches
a copy of the aforementioned right-to-sue letter. (Dkt. No. 6.)
When no specific challenge is made to a magistrate judge's reportrecommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2),(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition;
see also Brown v. Peters, 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997)
(Pooler, J.) [collecting cases], aff'd without opinion, 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir. 1999). 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b),
Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition; 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).
Based upon a review of this matter, the Court can find no clear error in the ReportRecommendation: Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 5.) As a result, the Court
accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. (Id.)
To those reasons, the Court adds only one fact: while special leniency must be offered to
pro se litigants (including the liberal construction of their responses to motions to dismiss as
effectively amending the factually consistent allegations of their complaints), the Court need not,
and will not, construe the document attached to Plaintiff’s “Objection” as an effective
amendment of her Complaint under the circumstances for each of two alternative reasons: (1)
doing so would result in piecemeal pleading, which would unnecessarily complicate Defendants’
2
attempt to answer that pleading; and (2) in any event, the Court would like the benefit of
Magistrate Judge Stewart’s views as to whether the document satisfies the pleading deficiency
identified by him (in the event Plaintiff attaches that document to her Amended Complaint).
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against Defendants Milstein and Perry are
sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the remainder of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be
DISMISSED unless, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order,
Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint that cures the pleading defects identified by Magistrate
Judge Stewart in his Report-Recommendation; and it is further
ORDERED that any Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff shall be a complete pleading
that supersedes and replaces (and does not incorporate by reference) her original Complaint, and
shall not re-assert her Title VII claims against Defendants Milstein and Perry (which have been
dismissed with prejudice); and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint within the referenced
thirty-day time period, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for his review.
Dated:
April 2, 2018
Syracuse, NY
________________________________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. 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?