Badilla, et al v. National Air Cargo Inc., et al

Filing 178

DECISION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge McCarthy's R&R 170 and GRANTS Midwest's summary judgment motion 155 . The claims against Midwest, and Midwest's counterclaim for indemnification, are DISMISSED. Because this disp oses of the only remaining claims, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and the prior dispositive orders, see ECF Nos. 120, 154, and shall close this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 1/14/2020. (MFM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JESSICA T. BADILLA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case # 12-CV-1066-FPG
DECISION AND ORDER

NATIONAL AIR CARGO INC., et al.,
Defendants.

This case arises from an October 2010 airplane crash that occurred near Kabul Afghanistan
International Airport. Plaintiffs are the personal representatives of six crew members killed in the
crash, who brought suit against several entities alleged to be responsible. See generally ECF No.
95. The only remaining defendant is Midwest Air Traffic Control Service, Inc. (“Midwest”), a
government contractor that provided air traffic control services at the airport. Plaintiffs allege that
Midwest employed the air traffic controller who negligently instructed the pilot and thereby caused
the crash. 1 Id. at 12-13.
Before the Court is the Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate
Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, in which he recommends granting Midwest’s motion for summary
judgment. ECF No. 170. Plaintiffs timely filed their objections to the R&R. See ECF Nos. 174,
176.
When a party makes specific objections to portions of a magistrate judge’s R&R, the
district court reviews those portions de novo. Loc. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). An
objection must “specifically identify” the portions of the R&R to which the party objects, and
provide a “basis for each objection” that is “supported by legal authority.” Loc. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

1

For a full summary of the underlying events, the Court refers the reader to Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s
thorough recitation of the facts. See ECF No. 170 at 1-8.

Judge McCarthy granted Midwest’s motion for several independently dispositive reasons.
Plaintiffs object to each of those reasons. The Court need not address them in detail, however,
because each of Plaintiffs’ objections is adequately addressed by Judge McCarthy’s
comprehensive and well-reasoned R&R. It suffices to say that, even after de novo review, the
Court agrees with Judge McCarthy’s rejection of Plaintiffs’ arguments.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge McCarthy’s R&R (ECF No. 170) and GRANTS
Midwest’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 155).

The claims against Midwest, and

Midwest’s counterclaim for indemnification, are DISMISSED. Because this disposes of the only
remaining claims, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and the
prior dispositive orders, see ECF Nos. 120, 154, and shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 14, 2020
Rochester, New York

______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

2