Opinion

ATES DIST

EL oe FILED □□

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □□

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | FEB 19 2026

eee Lap cw

NICOLE M. BELL,

Plaintiff,

Vv. 24-CV-572 (JLS) (JJM)

KALEIDA HEALTH, JONATHAN

HART, KIMBERLY WEAR; VANESSA

O’NEIL, UNIVERSITY OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK, by and

through the Board of Regents, LESTER

W. YOUNG, JR., Chancellor, Board of

Regents of the University of the State of

New York, in his official capacity, and

BETTY A. ROSA, Commissioner of the

New York State Education Department,

in her official capacity,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Nicole M. Bell, a former employee of Kaleida Health, commenced an

action in Supreme Court, Erie County on March 6, 2024 asserting various claims

against Defendants arising out of the termination of her employment as a Nursing

Supervisor. See Dkt. 1-1 at 6-23.1 Defendants removed the action on June 17, 2024.

Dkt. 1. On July 19, 2024, this Court referred the case to United States Magistrate

Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 686(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C).

Dkt. 6.

1 Page numbers refer to the CM/ECF stamped numbering in the header of each page.

Before the Court is Judge McCarthy’s [46] Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

addressing Plaintiff's [42] Second Motion to Remand to State Court. Plaintiff filed her

motion on December 1, 2025. Dkt. 42. Defendants opposed the motion, Dkt. 44, and

Plaintiff submitted a letter indicating that she elects not to file a reply. Dkt. 45.

Judge McCarthy issued the R&R on December 29, 2025. Dkt. 46. He

recommends that this Court grant Plaintiffs [42] motion for remand. See id. at 1.

Defendants objected to the R&R. Dkt. 49. They argue that: (1) the goals of judicial

economy and convenience are best served by dismissal, not remand; (2) Plaintiffs

procedural conduct in this litigation supports dismissal over remand; and (8)

Plaintiffs stated concerns over the statute of limitations and service do not support

remand. Seeid. Plaintiff opposed the objections, Dkt. 51, and Defendants replied.

Dkt. 52.

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)(8). 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 McCarthy’s

recommendation.

For the reasons above and in the R&R, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs [42]

motion for remand. The clerk of court shall close this case and effectuate the remand.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2026 ae

Buffalo, New York f

Ub fe

JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. □□

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE