Genco v. Starpoint Central School District Board of Education

Filing 27

DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying 9 Motion to Dismiss and denying 18 Motion for Permanent Injunction. This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Roemer for further proceedings consistent with the referral order on 12/21/2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/10/2018. (APG)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BENEDICT R. GENCO,
Plaintiff,
v.

17-CV-1168V(R)
DECISION AND ORDER

STARPOINT CENTRAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.

On November 15, 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action. Docket Item 1.
On December 21, 2017, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge
Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Docket
Item 11. On December 20, 2017, the defendant moved to dismiss, Docket Item 9;
on January 18, 2018, the plaintiff responded, Docket Item 13; and on February 19,
2018, the defendant replied, Docket Item 17. On March 7, 2018, the defendant moved
for a permanent injunction, Docket Item 18; and on March 27, 2018, the plaintiff
responded, Docket Item 19. On June 4, 2018, Judge Roemer issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), finding that the defendant's motions to dismiss and for a
permanent injunction should be denied. Docket Item 26. 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).
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). A district court
must conduct a de novo review of 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 Roemer's 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 Roemer's recommendation to deny the defendant's motions to dismiss and for a
permanent injunction.
For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the defendant's motion to dismiss,
Docket Item 9, is DENIED; the defendant’s motion for a permanent injunction, Docket
Item 18, is DENIED; and the case is referred back to Judge Roemer for further
proceedings consistent with the referral order of December 21, 2017, Docket Item 11.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 10, 2018
Buffalo, New York

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

2