Conway v. Healthfirst Inc. et al

Filing 96

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 83 Motion to Dismiss filed by Healthfirst Inc., 93 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the parties are bound by the terms of their settlement agreement, see Dkt. 93 at 11, and Conway's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment for Healthfirst and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 1/27/2025) (tg) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PATRICK CONWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 21-CV-6512 (RA)
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

HEALTHFIRST INC.,
Defendant.
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:

On July 31, 2021, Plaintiff Patrick Conway filed the complaint in this action, asserting
claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, and the New
York City Human Rights Law. The Court granted Defendant Healthfirst Inc.’s motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint with respect to all claims except Conway’s retaliation claims under
the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
The parties then appeared before Magistrate Judge Netburn for a settlement conference.
The parties reached an agreement on material settlement terms and agreed to create a binding oral
contract. After Healthfirst drafted up that agreement in writing, however, Conway “changed his
mind” about the settlement and refused to sign. Dkt. 85 at 5. Healthfirst then filed a motion to
enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, which the Court referred to Magistrate Judge
Netburn. Conway did not oppose Healthfirst’s motion.
Magistrate Judge Netburn then issued a report and recommendation (“the Report”), which
recommended granting Healthfirst’s motion to enforce the settlement and dismiss Conway’s
complaint with prejudice. Dkt. 93. Neither party objected to the Report.

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Parties may object to a
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations “[w]ithin 14 days after being served
with a copy of the recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “When the parties make
no objections to the Report, the Court may adopt the Report if ‘there is no clear error on the face
of the record.’” Smith v. Corizon Health Servs., 2015 WL 6123563, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2015)
(quoting Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)).
“Furthermore, if as here . . . the magistrate judge’s report states that failure to object will preclude
appellate review and no objection is made within the allotted time, then the failure to object
generally operates as a waiver of the right to appellate review.” Hamilton v. Mount Sinai Hosp.,
331 F. App’x 874, 875 (2d Cir. 2009).
No objections to Judge Netburn’s Report were filed here, so the Court reviews it for clear
error. After careful consideration of the record, the Court finds no error and thus adopts the wellreasoned Report in its entirety. Accordingly, the parties are bound by the terms of their settlement
agreement, see Dkt. 93 at 11, and Conway’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment for Healthfirst and close this
case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 27, 2025
New York, New York
Ronnie Abrams
United States District Judge

2