# Heuser v. City of Glen Cove

> District Court, E.D. New York · February 3, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10793169

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** February 3, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10793169

## Opinion text

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LONG ISLAND OFFICE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only
KRISTINA S. HEUSER,

Plaintiff,

-against- ORDER
21-cv-2018 (JMA) (SIL)
CITY OF GLEN COVE and RICHARD J.
MCCORD,

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:

Currently pending before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Defendants City of Glen
Cove and Richard J. McCord. These motions had previously been referred to Magistrate Judge
Steven I. Locke for a Report and Recommendation. On June 30, 2023, Judge Locke issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which recommends that Defendants’ motions be granted,
that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that Plaintiff be denied leave to amend her
Complaint. (ECF No. 34.)
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a court must “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which objection[s]
[are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Brown v. Ebert, No. 5-CV-5579, 2006 WL
3851152, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). The 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)(C).
Those portions of a report and recommendation to which there is no specific reasoned objection
are reviewed for clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
The Court previously adopted the R&R without prejudice because the Court did not have
a record of receiving Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed her objections
along with a screenshot indicating that she had previously submitted her objections electronically.
The Court considers Plaintiff’s objections to have been timely filed and considers those objections
on the merits.
I have undertaken a de novo review of the record, the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and
Defendants’ opposition briefs. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. The Court adopts the R&R,

grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss, denies Plaintiff leave to amend, and dismisses Plaintiff’s
claims with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2025
Central Islip, New York

/s/ (JMA)
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10793169. Public record. Not legal advice.