1485 Niagara, LLC v. National Park Service et al

Filing 49

DECISION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 18 motion for summary judgment, in part, to the extent of vacating the administrative decision and remanding for further proceedings; denying Defendants' 27 cross-motion for summary judgment; and affirming Judge McCarthy's order granting Defendants' motion to strike, except as to the information contained in Dkt. 18-2. The Clerk of Court shall close this case and update the docket to reflect the substitution of Deb Haaland for David Berhardt as the Secretary for the U.S. Department of the Interior. Signed by Hon. John L. Sinatra, Jr. on 3/31/2021. (KLH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1485 NIAGARA, LLC,
Plaintiff,

2()-CV-49 (JLS)(JJM)

V.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, JOY

BEASLEY, in her official capacity as
Keeper of the National Register of
Historic Places, DEB HAALAND,i in
her official capacity as Secretary of the
U.S. Department of the Interior,

DISTRICT

loewenS

Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff 1485 Niagara, LLC commenced this action on January 14, 2020,
alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act related to Defendants'

failure to list Plaintiffs property on the National Register of Historic Places. See
Dkt. 1. Defendants answered the complaint on March 16, 2020, and filed the
administrative record on May 27, 2020. See Dkts. 8, 16, 17.
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on July 1, 2020. Dkts. 18, 21.

Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment, and filed a response to Plaintiffs
statement of undisputed facts, on August 20, 2020. See Dkts. 26, 27, 28, 29.

Plaintiff responded in further support of its motion for summary judgment, and in

^ Secretary Haaland is automatically substituted for Defendant David Bernhardt,
the former Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
25(d).

opposition to Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and statement of

undisputed facts, on September 18, 2020. See Dkts. 34, 35. Defendants filed a reply
in further support of their cross-motion for summary judgment on October 15, 2020.
Dkt. 41.

Together with their motions for summary judgment, the parties moved with
respect to evidence submitted by Plaintiff. In particular, Defendants moved to
strike extra-record evidence submitted by Plaintiff in support of its motion for

summary judgment. Dkts. 24, 25. Plaintiff responded in opposition and crossmoved to supplement the administrative record. Dkts. 30, 31. Defendants opposed
the cross-motion to supplement and further supported their motion to strike. See
Dkt. 38. And Plaintiff further supported its motion to supplement. Dkt. 39.
On March 23, 2020, the Court referred this case to United States Magistrate
Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all pretrial matters, excluding dispositive motions,
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Dkt. 9. The Court added a dispositive referral,
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), on October 6, 2020. Dkt. 40.
Judge McCarthy issued a Report, Recommendation and Order ("RR&O")on
December 15, 2020: (1) recommending that this Court grant Plaintiffs motion for

summary judgment, in part, to the extent of vacating the administrative decision
and remanding for further administrative proceedings:(2) recommending that this
Court deny Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment;(3) granting
Defendants' motion to strike; and (4) denying Plaintiffs motion to supplement.

except as to the portions of Dkt. 18-2 {*\\^\ 1-6) to which Defendants consented. See
Dkt. 42, at 5, 10.

Plaintiff objected to the RR&O. Dkt. 43. First, Plaintiff argues that Judge
McCarthy erred in recommending that this Court remand the matter to the agency

for further administrative proceedings. See id. at 1. Second, Plaintiff argues that
Judge McCarthy erred in granting Defendants' motion to strike the affidavits
Plaintiff offered to support its motion for summary judgment. See id. Defendants
opposed Plaintiffs objections, but did not file their own objections to the RR&O. See

Dkt. 47. And Plaintiff replied in further support of its objections. Dkt. 48.
Collectively, the referral orders authorized Judge McCarthy to "hear and
determine any pretrial matter before the court," and to "submit. . . proposed
findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition . . . of any [other] motion."
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), (C); Dkts. 9, 40. The RR&O implicates both
referral orders because it recommends granting, in part. Plaintiffs dispositive
motion for summary judgment and denying Defendants' motion for summary

judgment, and grants Defendants' non-dispositive motion to strike and denies, in
part, Plaintiffs non-dispositive motion to supplement. See Dkt. 42. Neither party

disputes the characterization of these motions as such. See Dkts. 43, 47, 48. As
explained below, different standards of review apply to each portion of the RR&O.
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 nouo 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). And it must modify or set aside any part of a magistrate judge's order that
is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). An order "is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant
statutes, case law or rules of procedure." Tracy v. NVR, Inc., 791 F. Supp. 2d 340,
342 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)(internal quotations and citation omitted).
This Court carefully reviewed the RR&O and the relevant record. Based on

its de nouo review of Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, the Court accepts
and adopts Judge McCarthy's recommendation to grant Plaintiffs motion, in part.^
And based on its clear error review, the Court affirms Judge McCarthy's order

granting Defendants' motion to strike.
For the reasons stated above and in the RR&O,the Court:
• GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 18), in part,
to the extent of vacating the administrative decision and remanding
for further administrative proceedings;
• DENIES Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 27);
and

2 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). Nevertheless, given the

close relationship between the parties' motions for summary judgment, the Court
also reviewed the RR&O's recommendation regarding Defendants' cross-motion for
summary judgment and accepts and adopts that recommendation, as well.
4

• AFFIRMS Judge McCarthy's order granting Defendants' motion to
strike (Dkt. 24), except as to the information contained in Dkt. 18-2

1-6, which Defendants consent to supplementing the record with.
The Clerk of Court shall close this case, and shall update the docket to reflect
the substitution of Deb Haaland for David Bernhardt as the Secretary for the U.S.
Department of the Interior.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

March 31, 2021
Buffalo, New York

JOil^N L. SINATRA, JR('
UfJITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE