1:19-cv-05008
S.D.N.Y.Mar 6, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Evita Jules sued her former employers (Dr. Michael Chesner and Dr. Robert B. Vogel, D.D.S., PLLC) alleging race and national-origin employment discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, New York State and City human rights laws, and § 1983, and also alleged fraud/conspiracy regarding a NYSDHR dismissal.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on August 1, 2019; Magistrate Judge Netburn issued an R&R on December 17, 2019 recommending dismissal.
- The District Court adopted the R&R and dismissed the case on January 7, 2020; Jules later asked to reopen, asserting she had not received the full R&R before filing objections.
- The Court reopened the case, Jules filed renewed objections, and the Court reviewed the R&R again on the renewed submissions.
- The Court concluded Jules’s objections were broad, conclusory, and largely a rehash of prior arguments, so it reviewed the R&R only for clear error and found none.
- The Court adopted the R&R in full, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss (with permission to pursue state-law claims in state court), and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying IFP for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether case should be reopened after alleged lack of full R&R | Jules asserted she did not receive the full R&R before filing objections | R& defendants argued dismissal was proper and objections insufficient | Court reopened, permitted renewed objections, but ultimately adopted R&R again |
| Whether renewed objections require de novo review | Jules asked court to consider objections substantively | Defendants contended objections were conclusory and insufficient | Objections were conclusory; court reviewed for clear error and found none |
| Sufficiency of federal claims (Title VII, §1981, §1983, NYHRL, NYC H.R.L.) | Jules alleged discrimination and related claims | Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state viable federal claims | Court granted motion to dismiss federal claims; allowed pursuit of state claims in state court |
| Permission to proceed IFP on appeal | Jules implicitly sought appellate review | Defendants opposed | Court certified appeal not in good faith and denied IFP for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (district court may accept parts of an R&R to which no timely objection was made upon finding no clear error)
- United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1997) (standard for district court de novo review of properly objected portions of an R&R)
- Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) (objections to an R&R must refer to specific findings and support positions with legal authority to preserve appellate review)
- Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (perfunctory or rehashed objections warrant clear-error review only)
- Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008) (court may certify appeal is not taken in good faith and deny IFP when claims are frivolous)