“As to a dispositive matter, any part of the magistrate judge’s recommendation that has been properly objected to must be reviewed by the district judge de novo.”
How later courts described this case
- “As to a dispositive matter, any part of the magistrate judge’s recommendation that has been properly objected to must be reviewed by the district judge de novo.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------X
Arthur Lamar Brown,
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
22-CV-00688 (DG) (CLP)
-against-
City of New York, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------X
DIANE GUJARATI, United States District Judge:
On June 12, 2024, Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the letter filed at ECF No. 54 by Defendant the
State of New York (the “State”) – which Judge Pollak construed as a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims against the State on state sovereign immunity grounds – be granted and that
Plaintiff’s claims against the State be dismissed with prejudice on state sovereign immunity
grounds. See R&R at 1-2, ECF No. 78.1
Pro se Plaintiff thereafter filed a letter objecting to the R&R. See Objection Letter, ECF
No. 79. In the Objection Letter, Plaintiff states, inter alia: “I hereby formally Object to the
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 78) dated June 12, 2024, and reserve my right to Appeal
any adverse District Court Orders and/or Decisions that result therefrom.” See Objection Letter
at 1.
The State did not file any objections to the R&R or any response to Plaintiff’s Objection
Letter. See generally docket.
1 Familiarity with the detailed procedural history and background of this action is assumed
herein.
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); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (providing that a district court “must determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to”); Arista
Recs., LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2010) (“As to a dispositive matter, any part of
the magistrate judge’s recommendation that has been properly objected to must be reviewed by
the district judge de novo.”); Lorick v. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, No. 18-CV-07178,
2022 WL 1104849, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2022). To accept those portions of an R&R to
which no timely objection has been made, however, “a district court need only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Lorick, 2022 WL 1104849, at *2 (quoting Ruiz
v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10-CV-05950, 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014)); see
also Jarvis v. N. Am. Globex Fund, L.P., 823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).
In light of Plaintiff’s Objection Letter and out of an abundance of caution, the Court
reviews de novo the entirety of the R&R. A review of the R&R, the record, and the applicable
law reveals that Judge Pollak properly concluded that the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 54, should
be granted on state sovereign immunity grounds and that Plaintiff’s claims against the State
should be dismissed.2 The Court adopts the R&R, as modified to reflect that dismissal of
2 In the Objection Letter, Plaintiff represents that he “ha[s] been unable to do any legal research
on any of the cases cited in the Report and Recommendation, or the proper format for filing an
objection” because his “requests to attend the Law Library” have been ignored. See Objection
Letter at 2. Plaintiff does not, however, request additional time – nor, in any event, would
additional time be availing because, as thoroughly explained in the R&R, see R&R at 2-6,
Plaintiff’s claims against the State must fail on state sovereign immunity grounds.
Plaintiff’s claims against the State is without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking any appropriate relief
in state court.
* * *
The motion to dismiss, ECF No. 54, is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against the
State are dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking any appropriate relief in state court.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies in forma pauperis status for the purpose of
an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Diane Gujarati __
DIANE GUJARATI
United States District Judge
Dated: August 5, 2024
Brooklyn, New York