Chinn v. The Elmwood Franklin School et al

Filing 240

DECISION AND ORDER: The Court accepts and adopts Judge McCarthy's R&R 237 , grants the Buffalo Public Schools District's summary judgment motion 123 , and dismisses this case with prejudice. The Clerk of Court will enter judgment and close this case.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 9/9/2019. A copy of the NEF and Decision and Order were mailed to Plaintiff. (AFM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHELLONNEE B. CHINN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case # 15-CV-938-FPG
DECISION AND ORDER

THE ELMWOOD FRANKLIN SCHOOL, et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff Shellonnee B. Chinn brings this case for alleged discrimination and
retaliation that she encountered during her employment as a teacher at the Elmwood Franklin
School in Buffalo, New York. ECF No. 1. The Court referred this case to United States Magistrate
Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for pretrial matters and to hear and report upon dispositive motions
for the Court’s consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). ECF Nos. 72, 159.
On July 10, 2018, the Buffalo Public Schools District—the only remaining Defendant in
this case—moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. ECF
No. 123. On August 8, 2019, Judge McCarthy issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) in
which he recommends that the Court grant the District’s motion and dismiss this case. ECF No.
237. Judge McCarthy also found that Plaintiff was not entitled to additional discovery. Id.
Plaintiff objected to the R&R on August 26, 2019. ECF No. 239. For the reasons that
follow, the Court adopts Judge McCarthy’s R&R, grants the District’s summary judgment motion,
and dismisses this case with prejudice.
BACKGROUND
In Plaintiff’s 32-page Complaint that contains 160 paragraphs, she asserts numerous causes
of action against the District: race, sex, and age discrimination; deprivation of her rights under the

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, and 1985, and the
New York State Human Rights Law; retaliation; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
pain; and breach of contract. ECF No. 1 at 16-31. 1
Despite the length of her submission and the amount of claims she asserts against the
District, her allegations against it are scant. She alleges only that the District (1) administers and
manages federal Title II funding 2 given to Elmwood Franklin to support faculty development; (2)
denied Plaintiff funds due to her race, sex, and age; and (3) conspired with Elmwood Franklin to
retaliate against her for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Id. ¶ 79, 80-82, 133-38.
The District argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because it does not own, operate,
fund, or control the Elmwood Franklin School; instead, its roll in administering Title II funds to
Elmwood Franklin is purely ministerial and therefore it could not have discriminated against
Plaintiff as she alleges. ECF No. 123-2.
In support of its motion, the District submitted an affidavit from the administrator of its
Title II funds. ECF No. 123-3. That individual affirmed that they sometimes, but often do not,
know the names of the teachers who will receive funds at the schools within the City of Buffalo;
that Elmwood Franklin’s paperwork did not specify Plaintiff as a funds recipient during the
relevant period; that the District does not receive school staff rosters with information about the
teachers’ race, sex, or age and did not receive this information about any Elmwood Franklin
teachers; and that, before this lawsuit, District staff did not know about Plaintiff. Id. The District

1

Plaintiff initially filed four lawsuits that the Court merged into this case. ECF No. 69. Plaintiff named the District
as a Defendant in one other case, Chinn v. The Elmwood Franklin School, et al., Case # 15-CV-964-FPG. The
allegations and causes of action set forth against the District in that case are the same as those set forth in this case.
2

Title II, among other things, is designed “to provide grants to State educational agencies and subgrants to local
educational agencies to . . . increase the number of teachers, principals, and other school leaders who are effective in
improving student academic achievement in schools.” 20 U.S.C. § 6601.

2

maintains that it could not have discriminated against Plaintiff because it did not know her, let
alone know of any protected classifications that might apply to her.
In response, Plaintiff relies on the allegations contained in her Complaint, provides no
evidentiary support, and makes other conclusory statements without any factual or legal basis.
ECF No. 228. She also asks to depose six individuals and obtain other documents without
describing the specific facts she seeks to defeat summary judgment and how that information is
reasonably expected to create a genuine issue of material fact. ECF No. 225.
DISCUSSION
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, provide
a “basis for each objection,” and “be supported by legal authority.” Loc. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A party
who files objections to an R&R “must include . . . a written statement either certifying that the
objections do not raise new legal/factual arguments, or identifying the new arguments and
explaining why they were not raised to the magistrate judge.” Loc. R. Civ. P. 72(c).
When a party only generally objects to an R&R and does not make specific written
objections, “the district court may adopt [the R&R], as long as the factual and legal bases
supporting the findings and conclusions . . . are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Cordero
v. Miller, No. 1:15-CV-383-JJM-MAT, 2018 WL 3342573, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 9, 2018)
(quotation marks and citations omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, the district court
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part” the magistrate judge’s R&R. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C).

3

Plaintiff’s objections do not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 72(b). Instead,
she makes general objections that are not supported by legal authority, and she does not certify
that her objections do not raise new arguments. Because Plaintiff has only generally objected to
Judge McCarthy’s R&R, the Court analyzed it under a clear error standard.
After conducting this analysis and considering the relevant submissions, the Court finds no
clear error in Judge McCarthy’s findings or recommendations or on the face of the record. See
Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 677, 686 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (“When performing such a
‘clear error’ review, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.”) (quotation marks omitted). Specifically, there is
no genuine dispute as to whether the District could have discriminated or retaliated against Plaintiff
or otherwise violated her rights, because it did not know who she was before this lawsuit or have
any information about any protected classifications that might apply to her. Plaintiff’s assertions
to the contrary are conclusory and lack evidentiary support, and are therefore insufficient to defeat
summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
The Court accepts and adopts Judge McCarthy’s R&R (ECF No. 237), grants the Buffalo
Public Schools District’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 123), and dismisses this case with
prejudice. The Clerk of Court will enter judgment and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2019
Rochester, New York

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

4