Handberry, et al v. Thompson, et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: This Court has considered the issues raised in these objections and reviews de nova the objected-to portions of the Report. The City Defendant's objections did not provide this Court a compelling reason to change th e language as entered in the Report. As to the portions of the Report to which the City Defendant did not object, Magistrate Judge Francis' findings and recommendations were not clearly erroneous. The City Defendant's objections are hereby OVERRULED and DENIED. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 3/31/2016) (spo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ZAKUNDA-ZE HANDBERRY, ET AL.,
-againstWILLIAM C. THOMPSON, JR., ET AL.,
96 Civ. 6161 (GBD) (JCF)
GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge:
Originally filed in 1996, this case concerns the deficiencies in the education provided to
school-eligible inmates held in New York City jails. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge
James Francis on October 2, 2013 to adjudicate Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the Existing
Injunction. (ECF No. 185.) The parties jointly recommended Peter Leone, Ph.D, to serve as
Special Master pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(l )(C), and Magistrate Judge
Francis appointed Dr. Leone on June 10, 2014. (See June 10, 2014 Order, ECF No. 203.) After
about two decades of litigation and appeals and upon reviewing the findings of Dr. Leone's May
11, 2015 Amended Status Report, (ECF No. 231-4 ), Plaintiffs move for entry of an amended
injunction. 1 (See Pl.'s Proposed Am. Inj., ECF No. 231-3.)
Before this Court is Magistrate Judge Francis' December 2, 2015 Report and
Recommendation, ("Report," ECF No. 230), recommending that Plaintiff's motion for an
Amended Injunction be granted in part and entered accordingly.
(Report at 30.)
adopts those recommendations to the extent reflected in this Court's new order of injunctive relief
dated March 31, 2016.
The relevant procedural and factual background is set forth in greater detail in the Report, and is
incorporated herein. (See Report, at 2-8.)
This Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings set forth in the
Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). When there are objections to the Report, the Court must make
a de nova determination of those portions of the Report to which objections are made. Id; see also
Rivera v. Barnhart, 423 F. Supp. 2d 271, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The district judge may also receive
further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). The Court need not conduct a de nova hearing on the matter.
See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675-76 (1980). Rather, it is sufficient that the Court
"arrive at its own, independent conclusion" regarding those portions of the Report to which
objections were made. Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (quoting
Hernandez v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 619, 620 (5th Cir. 1983)). When no party files objections to a
Report, the Court may adopt the Report if "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Adee
Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Nelson, 618 F.
Supp. at 1189).
Magistrate Judge Francis advised the parties that failure to file timely objections to the
Report would constitute a waiver of those objections on appeal. (Report at 30); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(l)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The City filed timely objections to the Report. 2 (City Def.'s
Objs., ECF No. 241.) Plaintiffs responded to the City Defendant's objections. (Pis.' Resp. to City
Def.'s Objs. ("Pls.' Resp."), ECF No. 244.) The City filed a reply to Plaintiffs' response. (City
Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 247.)
This Court has considered the issues raised in these objections and reviews de nova the
objected-to portions of the Report. The City Defendant's objections did not provide this Court a
The State Defendant objects to the Report only to the extent that the Report does not make clear the State's
exclusion from the recommended relief (State Def 's Objs., ECF No. 238, at 1.) The State Defendant also
requested that this Court dismiss it from this action, but stated that it anticipated moving to dismiss itself or
requesting a referral to Magistrate Judge Francis for adjudication without formal motion practice. (See id. at 1-2.)
Plaintiffs contest the State's dismissal from this action as premature. (See Pis.' Resp., at 18.) As such motion is not
yet before this Court, the State's dismissal is unripe for adjudication here.
compelling reason to change the language as entered in the Report. As to the portions of the Report
to which the City Defendant did not object, Magistrate Judge Francis' findings and
recommendations were not clearly erroneous.
The City Defendant's objections are hereby OVERRULED and DENIED.
Dated: New York, New York
March 31, 2016
·y··-...'Jn· . ,
Umted States District Judge
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?