The opinion
AD SED TR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S vA
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Covey )
Plaintiff,
V. 24-CV-1054 (JLS) (MJR)
DARRELL KLUTE, JOHN R.
SEARLES, CATTARAUGUS COUNTY
BOARD OF ELECTIONS, KEVIN C.
BURLESON, and CORTNEY
SPITTLER,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Randall Barber commenced this action on October 30, 2024. Dkt. 1.
He alleges various claims related to Cattaraugus County’s denial of his New York
State Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) request, which sought access to “cast vote
records” from the “General Election 2022.” Id. at 5. He also alleges claims related to
the ultimate denial of his appeal from the initial Cattaraugus County decision. Jd. at
1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer
for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 6.
On November 25, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint. Dkt.
5. Plaintiff opposed the motion, Dkt. 10, and Defendants replied. Dkt. 11. On
September 16, 2025, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”),
recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice.
Dkt. 17 at 11-18.
Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 20. He argues that federal question
jurisdiction in this case exists in this case under HAVA § 301(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. at 2-3. He argues that Monell Liability
applies in this case. Id. at 3. He also argues that he has not received a meaningful
opportunity to be heard in the instant case because this Court has not granted his
motion for a hearing. Jd. Defendants opposed the objections, Dkt. 22. Plaintiff did
not reply to the Defendants’ opposition.
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 Judge Roemer’s
recommendation. Dkt. 17 at 11.
For the reasons above and in the R&R, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 5, is
GRANTED. Plaintiff has one final opportunity to replead in an attempt to state a
cognizable claim, due by no later than December 30, 2025.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2025
Buffalo, New York #f / (
JOHN L,SINATRA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE