582 F. App'x 47
2d Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Hamadou Seck and Douga Ba (pro se) sued the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) and District Council 37 Local 1070 (DC 37) in related litigation over interpreter matters and a settlement agreement.
- The district court dismissed claims against DC 37 in 2011 based on a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation; plaintiffs failed to object to that R&R after receiving clear notice of the consequences.
- In 2013 the district court granted summary judgment to OCA, concluding Seck and Ba had validly waived claims in the settlement agreement.
- On appeal, plaintiffs challenged both the DC 37 dismissal and the OCA summary judgment; Seck additionally asserted for the first time on appeal that his signature on the settlement was forged.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: it held the DC 37 dismissal was waived for lack of timely objections and that summary judgment for OCA was proper because the settlement waiver was valid; it declined to consider Seck’s forgery claim raised first on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs preserved challenge to DC 37 dismissal | Seck/Ba contested dismissal | DC 37 argued plaintiffs waived review by not objecting to R&R | Waived — plaintiffs failed to timely object after clear notice, so dismissal stands |
| Whether OCA was entitled to summary judgment based on settlement waiver | Plaintiffs argued waiver invalid or did not bar claims | OCA argued plaintiffs validly waived claims in settlement | Affirmed — no genuine dispute; waiver valid and bars claims |
| Whether court should consider Seck's forgery claim | Seck claimed signature was forged (first raised on appeal) | OCA argued claim forfeited because not raised below | Not considered — claim raised for first time on appeal was forfeited |
| Proper standard of review for summary judgment | N/A (procedural) | N/A | De novo review; draw inferences for nonmovant; summary judgment appropriate if no reasonable jury could find for nonmovant |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1997) (failure to timely object to magistrate R&R may waive review)
- Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1992) (notice sufficient if it warns that failure to object will waive review and cites authority)
- Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993) (district court may excuse default in interests of justice)
- Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, 182 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 1999) (must resolve ambiguities and draw inferences for nonmovant on summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment appropriate when record could not lead a rational jury to find for nonmovant)
- Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1994) (appellate court may refuse to consider issues raised for first time on appeal)