Brown v. New York State Education Department

Filing 9

DECISION and ORDER:It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel, dkt. # 8 , are hereby OVERRULED. The Report- Recommendation, dkt. # 3 , is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 4/17/2018. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(mgh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOSEPH ALLEN BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.

8:18-cv-169
(TJM/CFH)

NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

Thomas J. McAvoy, SR. U.S.D.J.

DECISION and ORDER
The Court referred this action alleging that the New York State Department of
Education violated Plaintiff’s rights, to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel, United States
Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Rule 72.3(d) of the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York. The ReportRecommendation, dated March 19, 2018, recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation. When objections to
a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a “de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a
review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
1

evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the
Plaintiff’s objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation
of Magistrate Judge Hummel for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the Report-Recommendation
of Magistrate Judge Hummel, dkt. # 8, are hereby OVERRULED. The ReportRecommendation, dkt. # 3, is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Complaint is hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:April 17, 2018

1

The Court takes no position on whether Plaintiff could raise identical claims in
Brown v. Clinton Correctional Facility no. 9:18cv70, which is assigned to Judge Sharpe.
Such questions are not before this Court.
2