Carrington v. Mota

Filing 26

ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendations re: 16 Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeannette Mota, City of New York: This Court adopts the Report in its entirety. No objections to the Report have been filed. The Report contains no clear error of law. For the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Cott's Report, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff may amend her complaint within 30 days of this Order, if amendment would not be futile to cure the deficiencies identified in the Report. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at ECF No. 16. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 12/7/2017) (jwh)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x ALICE CARRINGTON, J Plaintiff, -against- ORDER / JEANNETTE MOTA and CITY OF NEW YORK, 16 Civ. 8061 (GBD) (JLC) Defendants. ------------------------------------x GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge: Pro se Plaintiff Alice Carrington brought this action alleging employment discrimination and retaliation on October 12, 2016 pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") against Defendants Jeannette Mota and the City of New York. (Compl., ECF No. 2.) On December 12, 2016 this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Cott. (ECF No. 8.) Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion. Before this Court is Magistrate Judge Cott's August 31, 2017 Report and Recommendation ('"Report," ECF No. 37), recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted but that Plaintiff be given permission to amend her complaint within 30 days of an order adopting the Report. (See Report at 1.) 1 This Court adopts the Report in its entirety. 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 )(1 )(C). When no party files objections to a report, the Court may adopt 1 The relevant procedural and factual background is set forth in greater detail in the Report, and is incorporated herein. ;I: r: ' ~I ' }' ,' the report if ·'there is no clear error on the face of the record." Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. /Imoto. 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)); Wilds v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N .Y. 2003) ("To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.'') (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Magistrate Judge Cott advised the parties that failure to file timely objections to the Report would constitute a waiver of those objections on appeal. (Report at 37); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No objections to the Report have been filed. The Report contains no clear error of law. Plaintiff has not alleged that she suffered an adverse employment action motivated by discriminatory intent or a retaliatory motive. Additionally, Plaintiff's factual allegations do not create a plausible inference that she has been subject to a hostile work environment. for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Cott's Report, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff may amend her complaint within 30 days of this Order, if amendment would not be Cutile. to cure the deficiencies identified in the Report. 2 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at ECF No. 16. Dated: New York. New York December 7, 2017 SO ORDERED. (/ ,, ,-·)\ ,. ~ / h y ,,i,.ffe, c(Rcill B. DANIELS United States District Judge 2 Plaintiff should file any amended complaint with numbered paragraphs. (See Report at 35.) 2

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?