Stapleton v. New York City Department of Education

S.D. New York

Stapleton v. New York City Department of Education

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 21, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-09351·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ee SS □□□ □□ eR oe ween aE ean nenaenewene K KATY STAPLETON, Plaintiff, 7 22 Civ. 9351 (PAE) (SDA) ~ : OPINION & ORDER NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, : et al., : Defendants. weep a ect er REE oes eee XK PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Plaintiff Katy Stapleton, a Spanish teacher, here brings claims against her employer, New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”), and her coworkers, Juan Villar, Bienvenida Galvez, Sofia Russo, Elizabeth Payero, Randall Chenevert, and Marilyn Ramirez. Stapleton brings three claims. First, she brings against all defendants a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. 1 (““Comp!l.”) at 10-11. Second, she brings against NYCDOE a retaliation claim under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seg. See id. at 11-12. Third, she brings a defamation claim against Ramirez under state law. See id. at 12. Currently pending is defendants’ joint motion to dismiss all claims. See Dkt. 28. Before the Court is the September 6, 2023 Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part defendants’ motion. Dkt. 19 (“Report”). Specifically, the Report recommends that the Court (1) dismiss Stapleton’s defamation claim and (2) grant Stapleton leave to amend her two federal claims, as she has requested. See id. at 16. The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts provided in the Report. For the following reasons, the Court adopts Judge Aaron’s recommendations in full.

DISCUSSION 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). “To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Ruiz v, Citibank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF), 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No, 02 Civ, 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y, 2003), As no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Aaron’s thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. Because the Report explicitly states that “failure to object within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review,” Report at 17, the parties’ failure to object operates as a waiver of appellate review. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. See’p of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Aaron’s Report in its entirety. ‘The Court thus dismisses Stapleton’s defamation claim and grants Stapleton leave to amend her federal claims. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of the Court to terminate the motion at docket 28. The case remains under the able pretrial supervision of Judge Aaron.

SO ORDERED. A Don a

Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge Dated: September 21, 2023 New York, New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ee SS □□□ □□ eR oe ween aE ean nenaenewene K KATY STAPLETON, Plaintiff, 7 22 Civ. 9351 (PAE) (SDA) ~ : OPINION & ORDER NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, : et al., : Defendants. weep a ect er REE oes eee XK PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Plaintiff Katy Stapleton, a Spanish teacher, here brings claims against her employer, New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”), and her coworkers, Juan Villar, Bienvenida Galvez, Sofia Russo, Elizabeth Payero, Randall Chenevert, and Marilyn Ramirez. Stapleton brings three claims. First, she brings against all defendants a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. 1 (““Comp!l.”) at 10-11. Second, she brings against NYCDOE a retaliation claim under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seg. See id. at 11-12. Third, she brings a defamation claim against Ramirez under state law. See id. at 12. Currently pending is defendants’ joint motion to dismiss all claims. See Dkt. 28. Before the Court is the September 6, 2023 Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part defendants’ motion. Dkt. 19 (“Report”). Specifically, the Report recommends that the Court (1) dismiss Stapleton’s defamation claim and (2) grant Stapleton leave to amend her two federal claims, as she has requested. See id. at 16. The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts provided in the Report. For the following reasons, the Court adopts Judge Aaron’s recommendations in full.

DISCUSSION 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). “To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Ruiz v, Citibank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF), 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No, 02 Civ, 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y, 2003), As no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Aaron’s thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. Because the Report explicitly states that “failure to object within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review,” Report at 17, the parties’ failure to object operates as a waiver of appellate review. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. See’p of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Aaron’s Report in its entirety. ‘The Court thus dismisses Stapleton’s defamation claim and grants Stapleton leave to amend her federal claims. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of the Court to terminate the motion at docket 28. The case remains under the able pretrial supervision of Judge Aaron.

SO ORDERED. A Don a

Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge Dated: September 21, 2023 New York, New York

Stapleton v. New York City Department of Education, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Stapleton v. New York City Department of Education (Stapleton v. New York City Department of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related