Mineweaser v. City of North Tonawanda

Filing 31

-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP- DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy's Report and Recommendation 25 . Defendant's motion for summary judgment 17 is granted as to plaintiff's ADA claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's NYSHRL claims. The Clerk of the Court shall take all steps necessary to close the case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 6/13/16. (LAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JERRI L. MINEWEASER,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
14-CV-144-RJA-JJM

v.
CITY OF NORTH TOWNAWANDA,

Defendant.

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

On March 21, 2016, Judge McCarthy filed a Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25), recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. No. 17) be granted as to Plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
claims, and that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) claims.
On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Memorandum of Law in Response to the
Report and Recommendation.” Dkt. No. 28. As its title tacitly acknowledges, Plaintiff’s
memorandum is not an objection to Judge McCarthy’s Report and Recommendation.
Indeed, the memorandum begins by stating that it does “not . . . question the wisdom
and the decision of the Court.”

Id. at 1.

And the memorandum’s conclusion

underscores this point: it reiterates that the memorandum’s “purpose . . . was not to
question the authority, wisdom, and ultimate conclusions of” Judge McCarthy’s Report
1

and Recommendation. Id. at 3. Rather, plaintiff states that his memorandum was
intended only to “clarify the record upon which [the Report and Recommendation] was
based.” Id. at 1.
In relevant part, Local Civil Rule 72(b) requires that objections to a report and
recommendation “specifically identify the portions of the proposed . . . recommendations
to which objection is made and the basis for each objection.” To be sure, Plaintiff’s
memorandum complains about statements in four footnotes of the Report and
Recommendation. But as Plaintiff concedes, he does not object to any part of the
Report and Recommendation’s conclusions that the Court should grant summary
judgment as to his ADA claims and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
his state law claims; he does not, in other words, “specifically identify” any part of Judge
McCarthy’s recommendations to which he objects. L.R. 72(b).
The purpose of the Federal Magistrates Act is “to increase the overall efficiency
of the federal judiciary.” Camardo v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension
Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992). Local Rule 72 promotes this goal by
requiring parties to identify for the district court those parts of a report and
recommendation that might be incorrect. As a consequence, “[f]ailure to abide by the
Local Rule[]” 72 is “reason enough to dismiss [Plaintiff’s] objections.” Id. Indeed, Judge
McCarthy’s Report and Recommendation warns Plaintiff of this possibility, noting that
“[f]ailure to comply with [Local Rule 72] may result in the district judge’s refusal to
consider the objections.” Dkt. No. 25 at 34. Thus, because Plaintiff does not identify
any part of Judge McCarthy’s recommendation that might be incorrect (and, indeed,
because Plaintiff acknowledges that Judge McCarthy’s recommendation is correct), the
2

Court exercises its “broad discretion” to apply Local Rule 72 in the way Judge McCarthy
warned: the Court will not construe Plaintiff’s memorandum as an objection to Judge
McCarthy’s Report and Recommendation. Camardo, 806 F. Supp. at 382.
Failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (or, as in
this case, failure to comply with Local Rule 72) means that the Court reviews Judge
McCarthy’s Report and Recommendation for clear error. Jaroszynski v. Barnhart, 00CV-0898E(SC), 2004 WL 1812706 at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2004). Finding none, the
Court adopts Judge McCarthy’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Judge McCarthy’s Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25), defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 17)
is granted as to Plaintiffs’ ADA claims. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims.
The Clerk of the Court shall take all steps necessary to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_s/Richard J. Arcara___________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 13, 2016

3