Becker v. Buffalo Board of Education

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KEVIN J. BECKER,

Plaintiff,

DECISION AND ORDER

v. 17-CV-935

BUFFALO BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant.

On September 22, 2021, this Court referred this case to United States

Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

and (B). Dkt 17.1 Pending before this Court are the plaintiff's objections (Dkt. 25) to

Judge Schroeder's report and recommendation (“R&R”)(Dkt. 18), which

recommends granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in this employment

discrimination action alleging, inter alia, that defendant violated his rights under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII claim”) , as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000

et seq.; Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA claim”) , as

amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.; American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA

Claim”) , as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; and Uniformed Services

1 References herein, unless otherwise indicated, are to items set forth on the docket in

the above-captioned case.

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA claim”), as

amended, 38 U.S.C. §§4301 et seq. Dkt. 1, p.1. On May 4, 2018, defendant moved

to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. 4. Plaintiff responded to defendant’s motion to dismiss

on August 30, 2018. Dkt. 12. Defendant replied. Dkt. 16.

On March 26, 2025, Judge Schroeder issued his R&R, finding that the

defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted and recommending

that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. Dkt. 18.

Following an extension of his filing deadline, plaintiff, on April 30, 2025, filed

objections to Judge Schroeder’s R&R. Dkt. 25. Defendant filed a response, Dkt. 27,

and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 30.

DISCUSSION

With respect to dispositive matters, a district court “must determine de novo

any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to” and

“may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation are governed by Rule 72(b) of the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the United States District Court for the Western District of New York

(hereinafter “Loc.R.Civ.P.”). Specifically, Loc.R.Civ.P. 72(b) provides that the “written

objections shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and

recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for such objection and

shall be supported by legal authority.” See, Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate

Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 381 (W.D.N.Y. 1992). As this Court has

previously stated:

It is clear from the plain meaning of the rule that objections to a Report

and Recommendation are to be specific and are to address only those

portions of the proposed findings to which the party objects. It is

improper for an objecting party to attempt to relitigate the entire content

of the hearing before the Magistrate Judge by submitting papers to a

district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same

arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the

Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a “second bite

at the apple” when they file objections to a Report and

Recommendation, as the “goal of the federal statute providing for the

assignment of cases to magistrates is to ‘increas[e] the overall

efficiency of the federal judiciary.’ ” McCarthy v. Manson, 554 F.Supp.

1275, 1286 (D.Conn.1982), aff'd, 714 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1983) (quoting

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (former 5th Cir.1982) (en

banc)) (footnote omitted). “The purpose of the Federal Magistrates Act

is to relieve courts of unnecessary work.” Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford

Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605 (1st Cir. 1980). There is no increase in

efficiency, and much extra work, when a party attempts to relitigate

every argument which it presented to the Magistrate Judge.

Id., pp, 381-82. Here, plaintiff attempts to take a “second bite” by repeating in his

objections the very same arguments he made before Judge Schroeder. Judge

Schroeder issued a comprehensive and thorough 23-page R&R in which he

considered, analyzed, and rejected each claim raised by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s failure to

abide by the Local Rules alone provides sufficient basis for this Court to deny his

objections based on a clear error standard without even warranting de novo review.

Pickering v. U.S. Dep't of Just., No. 14-CV-330-A, 2024 WL 2149035, at *4

(W.D.N.Y. May 14, 2024).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court has, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B), made a de novo determination of the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the submissions of the parties, and

upon de novo review, the Court adopts the proposed findings for the reasons stated

in Judge Schroeder's Report and Recommendation. To the extent that plaintiff cites

to allegations set forth in an amended complaint he has recently filed in a different

lawsuit he has brought against defendant, see, Case 25-CV-305-A, Docket Item 2,

“to cure any deficiencies’ in the complaint filed in this case, Dkt. 30, p.11, such effort

is rejected by this Court. See, Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 140 (2d Cir.

2000)(“Plaintiff[] may not file duplicative complaints in order to expand [his] legal

rights”).

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for dismiss (Dkt. 4) is GRANTED; the

plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED; and the Clerk of Court is instructed to close the

case.

SO ORDERED.

s/Richard J. Arcara

HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dated: July 16, 2025

Buffalo, New York