applying de novo review to resolve objections to recommendation denying leave to amend
How later courts described this case
- applying de novo review to resolve objections to recommendation denying leave to amend
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TATES DISTR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SEP 25 2023
te Lap, et
TAYLOR GORDON, Seren istaicr ES
Plaintiff,
V. 22-CV-172 (JLS) (MJR)
NIAGARA WHEATFIELD CENTRAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Taylor Gordon commenced this action on March 3, 2022 asserting
claims under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et
seq. (“Title IX”) against Defendant Niagara Wheatfield Central School District (the
“District’). Dkt. 1. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff, while she was a student at
Niagara Wheatfield High School, suffered gender-based harassment and bullying
after she was raped by another student. See id. This Court referred the case to
United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28
U.S.C. §§ 686(b)(1)(A)-(C). Dkt. 5.
On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended complaint.
Dkt. 20. She seeks to add various constitutional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1983—including alleged violations of her rights under the First Amendment, the
Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause. Jd. She also seeks to add
several defendants, namely, the Niagara Wheatfield Central School District Board
of Directors (the “School Board”), as well as Michael Mann, Mary Graber, Jeffrey
White, Jennifer Huchzermeier, Daniel Lyjiljanich, and Mark Peters in their official
and personal capacities. Jd. Defendant opposed the motion, Dkt. 27, and Plaintiff
replied. Dkt. 34.
On August 22, 2023, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiffs motion be granted in part and denied in
part. Dkt. 47. Specifically, he recommended that Plaintiff be permitted to amend
the Complaint to include: (1) Title IX claims against the District and the School
Board; (2) Equal Protection Section 1983 claims against the District and School
Board, under Monell, as well as against Mann, Graber, White, and Ljiljanich in
their personal capacities; (3) First Amendment Section 1983 claims against the
District and the School Board, under Monell, as well as against Mann in his
personal capacity; and (4) procedural due process claims against the District, School
Board, and Mann in his personal capacity. Id. at 42. Judge Roemer recommended
that plaintiffs motion otherwise be denied. Id.
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)(8). A district
court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which a party objects, and must review any objected-to portion
of a magistrate judge’s order for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(a), (b)(8). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 686 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 u. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
Based on the absence of any objections, the Court accepts Judge Romer’s
recommendations.!
For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court GRANTS in part and
DENIES in part Plaintiffs (Dkt. 20) motion. As such, Plaintiffis granted leave to
amend the Complaint to include (1) Title IX claims against the District and the
School Board; (2) Equal Protection Section 1983 claims against the District and
School Board, under Monell, as well as against Mann, Graber, White, and Lyjiljanich
in their personal capacities; (3) First Amendment Section 1988 claims against the
this Court’s knowledge, the Second Circuit has not explicitly decided whether a
motion to amend is dispositive or non-dispositive. See Covet & Mane, LLC v.
Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC, No. 21-CV-7740 (JPC) (RWL), 2023 WL 2919554, at
*1n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2028) (“There is some debate in this Circuit whether a
motion to amend is considered dispositive or non-dispositive for purposes of whether
a Magistrate Judge’s ruling should issue as a Report and Recommendation, subject
to de novo review, or as a Decision and Order, subject to review for clear error.”)
(citing cases). Some courts within the Second Circuit have treated denial of a
motion to amend as dispositive matter requiring a recommendation from a
magistrate judge, and grant of a motion to amend as a non-dispositive matter that a
magistrate judge may order. See Zink v. First Niagara Bank, No. 13-CV-1-76-A,
2015 WL 423221, at *1 n.2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2015) (“District courts in this circuit
have suggested that a magistrate judge’s denial of a motion to amend . .. should be
treated as dispositive, while a grant of the same motion should be treated as non-
dispositive.”) (quoting Louts v. Metro. Transit Auth., No. 12 Civ. 63833(LG)JO),
2014 WL 5811455, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2014)). See also Briggs v. Cnty. of
Monroe, 215 F. Supp. 3d 218, 215 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (applying de novo review to
resolve objections to recommendation denying leave to amend). Because no party
objected—and, therefore, the applicable standard of review is not an issue—the
Court need not resolve the question here. To the extent denial of leave to amend is
construed as dispositive, the Court also accepts Judge Roemer’s conclusion that
leave to amend should be denied in part based on the lack of objections.
District and the School Board, under Monell, as well as against Mann in his
personal capacity; and (4) procedural due process claims against the District, School
Board, and Mann in his personal capacity.
This case is referred back to Judge Roemer for further proceedings consistent
with the May 5, 2022 referral order (Dkt. 5).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2023
Buffalo, New York
} ff
VA at (
JOHN L. SINATRA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE