Jiggetts v. Local 32BJ, SEIU et al

Filing 40

ADOPTION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 38 Report and Recommendations. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant AlliedBarton's request for reasonable at torneys' fees is hereby DENIED. Defendant AlliedBarton's Motion that Plaintiff be enjoined from further litigation regarding his employment with Defendant AlliedBarton is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any further suits against Defendant AlliedBarton in any federal court regarding the subject matter of these lawsuits unless he first obtains leave of the Court. Any application for leave to proceed shall be accompanied by a copy of this Order and Injunction, so that the reviewing judge is made aware of the history of this litigation. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the Docket in this case and serve a copy of this order and Injunction on Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 9/13/2011) (cd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------X

KYLE JIGGETTS,

Plaintiff,
10 Civ. 9082 (DAB)
ADOPTION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

-againstLOCAL 32BJ, SEIU, et al.,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------X

DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon the August 10, 2011
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James
C. Francis IV (the "Report").

Judge Francis' Report recommends

that Defendants AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC
{"AlliedBarton"}, Local 32BJ, SEIU {the "Union"}, and the City of
New York's (the "City") (collectively, "Defendants") Motions to
Dismiss be granted; that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed; that
AlliedBarton's request for reasonable attorneys' fees be denied;
and that AlliedBarton be granted an injunction against further
litigation by the Plaintiff regarding his employment with
AlliedBarton. 1

1

Plaintiff has filed numerous cases in the Southern
District under the name "Jiggetts" or "Jiggets" - many of which
have already been resolved. A search of the Southern District's
docket reveals that Plaintiff currently has three open cases,
other than the case before this Court: Jiggetts v. SEIU, Local
32BJ, 11 Civ. 2009 (WHP); Jiggetts v. SEIU, Local 32BJ et al., 11
Civ. 4667 (LTS); and Jiggets v. New York City Department of
Citiwide Administrative Services et al., 11 Civ. 1245 (PAC).

"Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation], a party may serve
and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations."
636(b) (1) (C).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (2); accord 28 U.S.C.

§

The district court may adopt those portions of the

report to which no timely objection has been made, so long as
there is no clear error on the face of the record.

Wilds v.

United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y.
2003).

"[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate's report

operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the
magistrate's decision."
604

(2d Cir. 2008)

(2d Cir. 1989».

Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601,

(quoting Small v. Sec. of HHS, 892 F.2d 15, 16
This rule applies to pro se parties so long as

the magistrate's report "explicitly states that failure to object
to the report within [fourteen (14)] days will preclude appellate
review ... "

Small, 892 F.2d at 16.

Despite being advised of the procedure for filing objections
to Judge Francis' Report, and warned that failure to file
objections would waive objections and preclude appellate review,
(Report at 26), Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Report.
Nor has any other Party filed objections to the Report.

2

Having reviewed the Report, and finding no clear error on
the face of the record, see 28 U.S.C.

§

636(b) (1) (B), it is

hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, dated August
10, 2011, be and the same hereby is APPROVED, ADOPTED, and
RATIFIED by the Court in its entirety.
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE.
Defendant AlliedBarton's request for reasonable attorneys' fees
is hereby DENIED.

Defendant AlliedBarton's Motion that Plaintiff

be enjoined from further litigation regarding his employment with
Defendant AlliedBarton is hereby GRANTED.

Plaintiff is enjoined

from filing any further suits against Defendant AlliedBarton in
any federal court regarding the subject matter of these lawsuits
unless he first obtains leave of the Court. 2

Any application for

leave to proceed shall be accompanied by a copy of this Order and
Injunction, so that the reviewing judge is made aware of the
history of this litigation.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the

In a letter dated August 24, 2011, Defendant
AlliedBarton requested an injunction preventing Plaintiff from
filing lawsuits against AlliedBarton in state court.
In a memo­
endorsed Order dated August 25, 2011, Judge Francis denied this
request given the comity concerns in enjoining a state court.
This Court adopts this recommendation by Judge Francis in full.
2

3

Docket in this case and serve a copy of this Order and Injunction
on Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
September

--'1-,

2011

~

~

a, &ill?

Deborah A. Batts
United States District Judge

4