Bull v. Erie County Sheriff Timothy B. Howard

Opinion

5 STATES DISTRICF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT iS PEED NBS WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MAY 01 2024 C A sx CYNTHIA BULL, as Administratrix Soo [sic] of the Estate of ROBERT H. INGALSBE, V., Plaintiff, 22-CV-766 (JLS) Vv. ERIE COUNTY SHERIFF TIMOTHY B. HOWARD, both individually and in his official capacity, THOMAS DIINA, Superintendent of the Jail Management Division of the Erie County Sheriffs Deputy, C P ISCH, Erie County Sheriffs Deputy, JUSTIN BAUER, Erie County Sheriffs Deputy, NICHOLAS CONIGLIO, Erie County Sheriffs Deputy, JOSEPH FALLETTA, Erie County Sheriffs Deputy, JASON SMACZNIAK, Erie County Sheriffs Sergeant, SLINAK, Erie County Sheriffs Sergeant, JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Correctional Health Care Unit, DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF OF ERIE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE UNIT, and SHC SERVICES, INC., Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Cynthia Bull, as Administrator of the Estate of Robert H. Ingalsbe, initiated this action asserting claims for deprivation of adequate medical care, negligent hiring, training and supervision, failure to train, substantive due process,

failure to treat, and municipal liability. Dkt. 1. Defendant SHC Services, Inc. (“SHC”) filed a motion to dismiss. See Dkt. 48. On April 11, 2024, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant SHC’s motion to dismiss the following claims against SHC, with leave to amend: first claim (deprivation of medical care); third claim (state law negligent hiring, training, and supervision); fourth claim (municipal liability based on failure to train); and sixth claim (failure to treat). See Dkt. 61, at 53. The R&R also recommends that this Court grant SHC’s motion to dismiss Bull’s fifth claim (substantive due process) against SHC, without leave to amend. Id. Neither party objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 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. section 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).

1 This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. sections 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 56.

Although not required to do so here, this Court nevertheless reviewed Judge Foschio’s R&R. Based on that review, and absent any objections, the Court accepts the R&R’s recommendation to grant SHC’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 48). See Dkt. 61, at 53. CONCLUSION For the reasons above and in the R&R, the Court GRANTS Defendant SHC’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 48). Bull is granted leave to amend her first claim (deprivation of medical care); third claim (state law negligent hiring, training, and supervision); fourth claim (municipal hability based on failure to train); and sixth claim (failure to treat). The case is referred back to Judge Foschio consistent with the August 3, 2028 referral order. Dkt. 56

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2024 an mm Buffalo, New York ff at ee

NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE