Brennan v. NCAComp Inc. et al

Filing 18

DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Lovric's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 16 ) is sua sponte DISMISSED because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 1/17/2023. (sal)

Case 3:22-cv-00127-GTS-ML Document 18 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
KEVIN JOSEPH GABRIEL BRENNAN,
Plaintiff,
3:22-CV-0127
(GTS/ML)

v.
NCACOMP, INC., Owner Kevin Gregory; JOLEEN
M. BOLGER (Snowdon), Manager of NCAComp., Inc.;
DR. ANNE M. CAULKINS, Site Supervisor of Lourdes
Pain and Wellness Ctr.; and RENE BARNES (Piccirilli),
Manager of N.Y.S. Worker’s Comp. Bd.; and
ASCENSION LOURDES,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

KEVIN JOSEPH GABRIEL BRENNAN
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Kevin Brennan
319 Exchange Avenue
Townhouse #20
Endicott, New York 13760
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed under the Americans
with Disabilities Act by Kevin Joseph Gabriel Brenna (“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned
individuals and entities (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric’s
Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint be sua
sponte dismissed without leave to replead because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted and it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 17.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the

Case 3:22-cv-00127-GTS-ML Document 18 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2

Report-Recommendation and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket
Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, the Court finds no error in the
Report-Recommendation, clear or otherwise:1 Magistrate Judge Lovric employed the proper
standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result,
the Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein, and
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to replead.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 16) is sua sponte
DISMISSED because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
Dated: January 17, 2023
Syracuse, New York

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