“A proper objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the R&R that the objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.”
How later courts described this case
- “A proper objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the R&R that the objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
DAVID C. OGULA,
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
20-CV-06346(EK)(LB)
-against-
CITY OF NEW YORK, FIRE DEPARTMENT
OF NEW YORK (FDNY), TERRYL L.
BROWN, STEPHEN RUSH, et al.,
Defendant.
------------------------------------x
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
The court has received Magistrate Judge Bloom’s Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated February 13, 2023. ECF No. 45.
Judge Bloom recommends dismissal of all federal claims in
plaintiff David Ogula’s Second Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim, without leave to amend. R&R 29. Judge Bloom
further recommends that the court decline supplemental
jurisdiction over Ogula’s state law claims. Id. Ogula timely
objected. See Pl.’s Obj. 1–2, ECF No. 46.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court
reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which a party has
specifically objected. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also
Kruger v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 2d 290, 296
(E.D.N.Y. 2013) (“A proper objection is one that identifies the
specific portions of the R&R that the objector asserts are
erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.”), aff’d,
578 F. App’x 51 (2d Cir. 2014).1 When considering objections
from a pro se litigant, the court interprets those objections to
raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See Spaulding
v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 407 F. Supp. 3d 143, 144 (E.D.N.Y.
2017). The district court also “retains the power to engage in
sua sponte review of any portion of the magistrate’s report and
recommendation, regardless of the absence of objections.”
Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 956 F. Supp. 509, 514 (S.D.N.Y.
1997), aff’d, 136 F.3d 313 (2d Cir. 1998). Such sua sponte
review “may be under a de novo standard, or any lesser standard
of review.” Id.
is the objections do not set out a clear statement of
reasons the the R&R’s recommendations should be set aside.
Nevertheless, mindful of Ogula’s pro se status, I have conducted
a de novo review of the R&R, and I adopt it now in its entirety.
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is
granted. Ogula’s federal claims under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,
and the Federal Equal Pay Act are dismissed with prejudice.
1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
Supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is declined.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment
for the defendants and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee__________
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: March 22, 2024
Brooklyn, New York