Matlock-Abdullah v. Dufel
Filing
8
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 6 Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report and Recommendation in its entirety; Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is accepted for filing, except for her claims against Defendant Dufel which are dismissed; the attachments submitted by Plaintiff with her original complaint are deemed to be part of her Amended Complaint; and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is returned to Magistrate Judge Dancks for review pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e). Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/27/15. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
ARRIAMA A. MATLOCK-ABDULLAH,
Plaintiff,
6:15-CV-0294
(GTS/TWD)
v.
SUSAN DUFEL, as Agent of NYSDOL; and
NEW YORK STATE DEP’T OF LABOR,
Defendants.
________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
ARRIAMA A. MATLOCK-ABDULLAH
Plaintiff, Pro Se
P.O. Box 76
Canajoharie, New York 13317
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se employment-discrimination action filed by
Arriama A. Matlock-Abdullah (“Plaintiff”) against the Director of the New York State
Department of Labor’s Division of Employment and Workforce Solutions, Susan Dufel
(“Defendant”), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ ReportRecommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) for failure to state a claim unless, within thirty days from the issuance of an
Order adopting the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint effectively
substituting the New York State Department of Labor for Ms. Dufel as the Defendant in this
action. (Dkt. No. 6.)1 Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and
1
More specifically, Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation
recommends that (1) Plaintiff be granted leave to file an Amended Complaint naming
the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) Instead, Plaintiff has filed
an Amended Complaint that adds the New York State Department of Labor as a Defendant while
keeping Ms. Dufel as a Defendant. (Dkt. No. 7.)2
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.3 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation
is accepted and adopted in its entirety, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is accepted for filing
except for her claims against Defendant Dufel, which are dismissed for the reasons stated by
Magistrate Judge Dancks.
the New York State Department of Labor as Defendant within thirty days, and (2) regardless of
whether or not Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint during that thirty-day period, the action
be dismissed with prejudice against Ms. Dufel. (Dkt. No. 6, at 6-7.) In addition, the ReportRecommendation recommends that, in the event Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint, the
attachments submitted with her original Complaint (Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 1-17) be deemed to be
part of that Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 6, at 7.)
2
In addition, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint checks a previous unchecked box,
which indicates that, in addition to claiming that Defendant’s conduct was discriminatory with
respect to her race or color under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she is claiming that
Defendant’s conduct violated her rights under the First Amendment (presumably as a result of
alleged retaliation). (Dkt. No. 7, at 2, ¶ 6.f.)
3
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 and citations omitted).
2
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 7) is accepted for filing
EXCEPT for her claims against Defendant Dufel, which are DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the attachments submitted by Plaintiff with her original Complaint (Dkt.
No. 1, Attach. 1-17) are deemed to be part of her Amended Complaint; and it is
ORDERED that the Amended Complaint, and in particular the new claim asserted by
Plaintiff (see, supra, note 2 of this Decision and Order), is returned to Magistrate Judge Dancks
for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Dated:
August 27, 2015
Syracuse, New York
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?