Coleman v. Levandowski et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANDREA LEVANDOWSKI, Social Worker, TERI
MAGES, Social Worker, KRISTINE MOONEY,
231 Lilac Street
Syracuse, NY 13208
Plaintiff, pro se
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?