Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SAI MALENA JIMENEZ-FOGARTY, Plaintiff(s), No. 25-cv-08498 (JLR) (GWG) -against- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT THOMAS FOGARTY, AND RECOMMENDATION Defendant(s).

JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: This petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a state court child custody determination was referred to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for a Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. 7. In the Report and Recommendation filed on March 6, 2025, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein recommended that the petition be denied. See Dkt. 14. In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, however, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” See, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). This clearly erroneous standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general objections. See Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP, 158 F.4th 349, 361 (2d Cir. 2025). In the present case, the Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections, and warned that failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object. See Dkt. 14 at 5-6. In addition, the Report and Recommendation expressly called Petitioner’s attention to Rules 6 and 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Id. at 5. Nevertheless, as of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and no request for an extension of time to object has been made. Accordingly, Petitioner has waived the right to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Frank v. Johnson,

968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008). Despite the waiver, the Court has reviewed the petition and the Report and Recommendation, unguided by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in fact and law. The petition challenges a state court’s child custody decision, and the Report and Recommendation correctly notes that “federal habeas corpus relief is not available to challenge the constitutionality of” such decisions. Dkt. 14 at 1-2. The Report and Recommendation also correctly found that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court has no jurisdiction to overturn a state trial court’s determination, which must be appealed “through the state appellate process.” Id. at 4 (quoting Levitin v. Rottenberg, No. 25-cv-08524

(NSR), 2026 WL 63719, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2026)). While Petitioner argued that due process violations or fraud in a state court matter present exceptions to both rules, the Report and Recommendation cited controlling case law foreclosing those arguments (and noted that one of the cases Petitioner cited in support of her position appeared to be “fabricated,” which is unacceptable). See id. at 2-5. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Court hereby DENIES the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case and to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner. Dated: March 23, 2026 New York, New York SO ORDERED. shee ie L. ROCHON United States District Judge