The opinion
ATES DISTRI
OS FED LO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ss
T 7
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUN 26 2024
SS Ay, LY
Wpcte LOEWENGUTY a wi
HOMESTEAD REPAIR & TERN DISTRICLS
RENOVATION, INC., and BECKY
MARINACCIO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
21-CV-388 (JLS) (HKS)
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF BUFFALO, BYRON W.
BROWN, in his capacity as Mayor of
the City of Buffalo, KEVIN HELFER,
in his capacity as Commissioner of the
City of Buffalo Parking Violations
Bureau, and SENSYS GATSO USA,
INC.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs challenge the use of a photo speed
monitoring system in a school zone designated for Buffalo Promise Neighborhood
Academy (“BPN Academy”). See Dkt. 15. The operative Complaint (Dkt. 15), which
seeks declaratory judgment and other relief, names the following Defendants: City
of Buffalo, Byron W. Brown (in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Buffalo), Kevin
Helfer (in his capacity as Commissioner of the City of Buffalo Parking Violations
Bureau) (collectively, the “City Defendants”), and Sensys Gatso USA, Inc.
(“Sensys”). See Dkt. 15.
Defendants removed the case from state court on March 12, 2021. Dkt. 1.
This Court then referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth
Schroeder for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 7.
Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. See Dkt. 40
(Plaintiffs); Dkt. 41 (the City Defendants); Dkt. 42 (Sensys). The parties filed their
respective motions on April 18, 2023, see id., and briefing followed. See Dkt. 44-49.
On February 21, 2024, Judge Shroeder issue a Report, Recommendation, and Order
(“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motions (Dkt. 41, 42), and
deny Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. 40). See id.
Plaintiffs objected to the R&R. Dkt. 56. They argue that Judge Schroeder
incorrectly concluded that: (1) BPN Academy was a “school” for purposes of the
relevant statue; (2) no violation of Plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights
occurred; and (3) there is no basis for a claim for unjust enrichment. See id.
Plaintiffs argue, in the alternative, that they are entitled to a trial. See id.
Defendants opposed the objections, Dkt. 60, 61, and Plaintiffs replied. Dkt. 64.
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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections briefing, and the
relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge
Schroeder's recommendation. For the reasons above and in the R&R, Plaintiffs [40]
motion is DENIED, and Defendants’ [41, 42] motions are GRANTED. The Clerk of
Court shall close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 26, 2024
Buffalo, New York
co f
JO . SINATRA, JR caer
ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE