Coleman v. Levandowski et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER that the 5 Order & Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter is accepted and adopted; and that this action be DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii). Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 8/22/2016. (see)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg ROCHELLE COLEMAN, Plaintiff, -v- 5:16-CV-734 (NAM/ATB) ANDREA LEVANDOWSKI, Social Worker, TERI MAGES, Social Worker, KRISTINE MOONEY, Social Worker, N Defendants. ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg APPEARANCES: Rochelle Coleman 231 Lilac Street Syracuse, NY 13208 Plaintiff, pro se A Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Senior U.S. District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER On June 22, 2016, plaintiff filed four separate civil rights complaints in one action. (Dkt. No. 1). Each is brought pursuant to a different civil rights statute. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. Nos. M 2, 3). On June 28, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter issued a thorough Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) granting plaintiff’s IFP application, denying plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, and recommending dismissal with prejudice of the entire action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has filed an objection. (Dkt. No. 6). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews de novo those parts of the Report-Recommendation to which plaintiff specifically objects. Where, however, an objecting party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments, the Court reviews for clear error. See Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008). When no objections are made, the Court conducts clear error review. See Kaboggozamusoke v. Rye Town Hilton Hotel, 370 F. App’x 246, 248, n.1 (2d Cir. 2010). Magistrate Judge Baxter thoroughly discussed plaintiff’s allegations that the social worker defendants “committed perjury and made inflammatory and untrue statements” about plaintiff, leading to the loss of custody of her children after an Onondaga County Family Court N proceeding.1 Judge Baxter concluded that plaintiff’s allegations did not state a claim under Title VII, the ADA, or Bivens; that trial witnesses are entitled to absolute immunity with respect to claims based on their testimony; and that in any event, consideration of any constitutional issues would be barred by the Rooker Feldman doctrine. (See generally Dkt. No. 5). Rather than address any of these conclusions in her objection, plaintiff simply re-states her belief that the A social workers have committed perjury and explains that she asked for monetary damages because her “family was hurt by these peoples action[s].” (Dkt. No. 6). : After thorough review of the record and applicable law, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Baxter’s analysis. Plaintiff’s allegations cannot state a claim against these defendants in this Court. M It is therefore ORDERED that the Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter is accepted and adopted; and it is further ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH PREJUDICE 1 The Onondaga Family Court Judge has been sued in a separate action, which this Court will address in another Memorandum-Decision and Order. See Coleman v. Hanuszczak, No. 5:16-CV-735. -2- pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this MemorandumDecision and Order in accordance with the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: August 22, 2016 N A M -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?