Jada C. Beard v. Tracey Mason, in her Official Capacity-Chief Nursing Officer; Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center; New York State Office of Mental Health; New York State; American Nurses Association, Inc., also known as American Nurses Association; Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.; American Nurses Association - New York, Inc.; and Office of Attorney General

Opinion

TES DISTR) Ka FED Lp UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ss A» WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NOV 1 8 2025 & cee C. LOEWENGUTY SS JADA C. BEARD, TERN DISTRICL Plaintiff, Vv. 24-CV-433 (JLS) (MJR) TRACEY MASON, in her Official Capacity-Chief Nursing Officer; WESTERN NEW YORK CHILDREN’S PSYCHIATRIC CENTER; NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH; NEW YORK STATE; AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION, INC., also known as American Nurses Association; MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION - NEW YORK, INC.; and OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jada C. Beard commenced this action on May 3, 2024. Dkt. 1. The Second Amended Complaint, filed on July 17, 2024, is the operative complaint. See Dkt. 12. Plaintiff asserts discrimination claims under various federal and state laws. See id. 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. 25. Before the Court is Judge Roemer’s Report, Recommendation, and Order (“R&R”), Dkt. 83, which addresses the following motions:

e A motion to dismiss by Defendants Tracey Mason, New York State, New York State Office of Mental Health, Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center (the “State Defendants”) (Dkt. 48); e A motion for judgment on the pleadings by Defendant Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. (“Maxim”) (Dkt. 51); e Plaintiffs motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts (Dkt. 28); e Plaintiffs motion for New York State Attorney General Attorneys to file a Notice of Appearance (Dkt. 53); e Plaintiffs motion for Extension of Time to Serve (Dkt. 54); and e Plaintiffs motion to notify and invite the Attorney General of the United States to intervene (Dkt. 75). Judge Roemer “recommended that Defendant [Maxim]’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 51) be granted and Plaintiffs motion for judicial notice of adjudicative facts (Dkt. No. 28) be denied as moot.” Dkt. 83 at 27. He “further recommended that the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 48) be granted as to Defendants Tracey Mason, New York State Office of Mental Health, and the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center, and denied as to Defendant New York State, on the basis of insufficient service of process.” Id. He recommended that dismissal be “without prejudice... Jd. at 28. In addition, Judge Roemer recommended that Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to serve (Dkt. No. 54) be granted as explained [in the R&R]” and that “Plaintiff be given leave to replead the claims discussed herein, and the claims previously addressed in the decision of the District Court dated April 20, 2025. (See Dkt. No. 82).”

Id. Lastly, Judge Roemer denied “Plaintiffs motion for an order directing the state attorney to file a notice of appearance (Dkt. No. 53)” and further denied “Plaintiffs motion for certification of a constitutional challenge (Dkt. No. 75).” Id. Plaintiff and the State Defendants filed objections. Dkt. 86, 87. The State Defendants argue that Judge Roemer erred in recommending that: (1) “Plaintiff has met the prima facie burden necessary to proceed with a Title VII disparate treatment claim based on race”; (2) “Plaintiff receive additional time under Rule 4(m) to serve the remaining State Defendants... .”; and (8) “Plaintiffs state law claims for prospective injunctive relief against Defendant Mason in her official capacity are not barred by sovereign immunity because she was found to have fall within the Ex Parte Young exception.” See Dkt. 86. Plaintiff asserts various objections to Judge Roemer’s conclusions as to each of the motions at Dkt. 48, 51, 28, 53, 54, and 75. See Dkt. 87. The State Defendants and Maxim opposed Plaintiffs objections, Dkt. 89, 90. Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 91.1 For a dispositive matter, the district court reviews de novo the parts of the R&R to which the parties object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). For a non- dispositive matter, the district court reviews the R&R for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). See also Fielding v. Tollaksen, 510 F.3d 175, 178 (2d Cir. 2007). 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).

1 Plaintiff then filed a Notice of Discrepancy in Counsel’s Address of Record, Dkt. 92, and a Notice of Submission to The United States Department of Justice. Dkt. 93.

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 recommendations. For the reasons above and in the R&R, Defendant Maxim’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 51)is GRANTED. Plaintiffs motion for judicial notice of adjudicative facts (Dkt. 28) is DENIED as moot. The State Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 48), is GRANTED as to Defendants Tracey Mason, New York State Office of Mental Health, and the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center, and DENIED as to Defendant New York State as discussed in the R&R. In addition, Plaintiffs motion for extension of time to serve (Dkt. 54) is GRANTED as discussed in the R&R. Plaintiffis granted leave to amend her claims as discussed in the R&R. The R&R is otherwise AFFIRMED. The case is referred back to Judge Roemer pursuant to the August 15, 2024 referral order. See Dkt. 25. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 18, 2025 Buffalo, New York □ □□ “JOHNG-SINATRA, JR. LL UNITED STATES DISTRICP JUDGE