Boubacar v. Buffalo Fine Arts Academy

Filing 63

DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated in the opinion and in the R&R, the defendant's motion for summary judgment, Docket Item 47 , is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The parties shall contact the Court within 30 days of the date of this order to schedule a status conference to set a trial date.(ZHM)This was mailed to: the plaintiff.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SOUMAILA BOUBACAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
BUFFALO FINE ARTS ACADEMY D/B/A
ALBRIGHT-KNOX ART GALLERY,

17-CV-16-LJV-HKS
DECISION & ORDER

Defendant.

SOUMAILA BOUBACAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
BUFFALO FINE ARTS ACADEMY D/B/A
ALBRIGHT-KNOX ART GALLERY, et al.,

17-CV-1092-LJV-HKS
DECISION & ORDER

Defendants.

On January 6, 2017, the pro se plaintiff, Soumaila Boubacar, commenced the
first of these actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the
New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) against defendant Buffalo Fine Arts
Academy d/b/a Albright-Knox Art Gallery (“Albright-Knox”). Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket
Item 1. On October 24, 2017, Boubacar, now represented by counsel, commenced a
second action arising out of the same events under Title VII, the NYSHRL, the
Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, against
Albright-Knox as well as Christine Skibinski, Janne Siren, and Karen Healey-Case.

Case No. 17-cv-1092, Docket Item 1. On March 29, 2019, this Court referred both
cases to United States Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. for all proceedings
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 15; Case No.
17-cv-1092, Docket Item 13.
On September 8, 2023, the defendants moved for summary judgment in both
actions, Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 47; Case No. 17-cv-1092, Docket Item 39;
on October 5, 2023, Boubacar responded, 1 Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 58; 2 and
on October 30, 2023, the defendants replied, Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 61; Case
No. 17-cv-1092, Docket Item 43. On October 31, 2024, Judge Schroeder issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that the defendants' motion should be
granted as to the Title VII claims against Skibinski, Siren, and Healey-Case but denied
in all other respects. 3 Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 62; Case No. 17-cv-1092,
Docket Item 44. The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time to do so now has
expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
1 Boubacar mistakenly filed an unfinished memorandum of law, Case No. 17-cv-

16, Docket Item 54, in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See
Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 59 (requesting that Judge Schroeder accept amended
memorandum of law). Judge Schroeder accepted Boubacar’s amended memorandum
of law, Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 58, for purposes of deciding defendants’ motion
for summary judgment. See Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 60.
2 Boubacar filed a response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment in only

one of these actions. Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 58. But Judge Schroeder
considered Boubacar’s response in both cases. Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 62 at
22 n.11; Case No. 17-cv-1092, Docket Item 44 at 22 n.11.
3 In Boubacar’s opposition, he did not address defendants’ argument that

summary judgment should be granted as to his section 1981 and Thirteenth
Amendment claims. Judge Schroeder accordingly deemed those claims abandoned.
Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 62 at 23 n.12; Case No. 17-cv-1092, Docket Item 44 at
23 n.12.
2

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of
a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court must
review de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party
objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636
nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the
recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
Although not required to do so in light of the above, this Court nevertheless has
reviewed Judge Schroeder’s careful and thorough R&R as well as the parties’
submissions to him. Based on that review and the absence of any objections, the Court
accepts and adopts Judge Schroeder’s recommendation to (1) grant the defendants'
motion for summary judgment as to Boubacar’s Title VII claims against Skibinski, Siren,
and Healey-Case; (2) dismiss the section 1981 and Thirteenth Amendment claims as
abandoned; 4 (3) deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Boubacar’s
NYSHRL claims against Skibinski, Siren, and Healey-Case; and (4) deny the

The Court agrees with Judge Schroeder’s conclusion that Boubacar
abandoned his section 1981 and Thirteenth Amendment claims by not addressing them
in his response. See Taylor v. City of New York, 269 F. Supp. 2d 68, 75 (E.D.N.Y.
2003) (“Federal courts may deem a claim abandoned when a party moves for summary
judgment on one ground and the party opposing summary judgment fails to address the
argument in any way.”). Defendants had sought summary judgment on Boubacar’s
section 1981 and Thirteenth Amendment claims, see Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item
47-2 at ¶ 2; Case No. 17-cv-1092, Docket Item 39-2 at ¶ 2 (noting that defendants
sought to dismiss Boubacar’s “claims in their entirety”), and Boubacar did not mention
these claims in his opposition. The Court thus understands Judge Schroeder’s R&R as
recommending that Boubacar’s section 1981 and Thirteenth Amendment claims be
dismissed as abandoned. The Court accepts and adopts this recommendation.
4

3

defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Boubacar’s Title VII and NYSHRL
claims against Albright-Knox.
For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the defendants' motion for
summary judgment in both cases; Case No. 17-cv-16, Docket Item 47; Case No. 17-cv1092, Docket Item 39; is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as noted above.
The parties shall contact the Court within 30 days of the date of this order to schedule a
status conference to set a trial date.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 25, 2024
Buffalo, New York

/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4