Waterman v. North Collins Emergency Squad, Inc. et al

Filing 17

DECISION AND ORDER: Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio's 16 Report and Recommendation is hereby adopted in its entirety. Defendants' 10 Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff's 1 Complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall take all steps necessary to close the case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 8/26/2022. (LAS)Clerk to Follow up (Main Document 17 replaced on 8/26/2022) (LAS).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________
KEITH WATERMAN,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
18-CV-706-A

v.
NORTH COLLINS EMERGENCY SQUAD, INC.,
and JANICE CATALANO,
Defendants.
______________________________________

This pro se employment discrimination action, alleging violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq. (“Title VII”), New York State
Human Rights Law, New York Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), Title I of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 et seq. (“ADA”), and the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d et seq.
(“HIPPA”), 1 was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for the performance of pretrial proceedings.
On August 2, 2022, Magistrate Judge Foschio issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 16) recommending that the Court grant
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 10) the Complaint for failure to state a
claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), with prejudice and
without leave to replead.

Plaintiff’s unlawful termination claims under Title VII and the ADA against defendant Janice Catalano
were dismissed by Order filed June 29, 2018 (Dkt. No. 4), so those claims proceeded only against
defendant North Collins Emergency Squad, Inc.
1

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) provides, “[t]he district judge must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to” (emphasis added). Here, no objections to the R&R have been
filed. “When no timely objection is filed, the [C]ourt need only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
1983 Advisory Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Patton v. Ford Motor
Co., 14-CV-0308-RJA-HBS, 2017 WL 2177621, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76148, *5
(W.D.N.Y. May 18, 2017) (same).
The Court finds no clear error with respect to Magistrate Judge Foschio’s
recommendations. As such, it is hereby
ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and for the reasons set
forth in the R&R, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to
replead.
The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Defendants and shall take
all steps necessary to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__s/Richard J. Arcara_______
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: August 26, 2022
2

Buffalo, New York

3