From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moran v. Deamelia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jun 28, 2017
1:17-CV-422 (TJM/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 28, 2017)

Opinion

1:17-CV-422 (TJM/CFH)

06-28-2017

THOMAS J. MORAN, Plaintiff, v. VICTOR P. DEAMELIA, AMANDA COLOMB, and NICOLE COMSTOCK, Defendants.


Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge

DECISION & ORDER

This pro se civil action, brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), was referred to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).

The Report-Recommendation, dated April 20, 2017, provided the Complaint-filed in forma pauperis-with a preliminary screening. After engaging in that screening, Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed in its entirety. The Magistrate Judge recommended that some claims be dismissed with prejudice and some without prejudice. He also recommended that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel be denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. When objections to a magistrate judge's Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.

Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the Plaintiff's objections, the Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff's objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel, Dkt. # 6, are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, Dkt. # 5, is hereby ADOPTED; and:

1. Plaintiff's Title VII claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice;

2. Plaintiff's ADA claims are hereby DISMISSED against Defendants Victor P. DeAmelia, Amanda Colomb, and Nicole Comstock, with prejudice;

3. Plaintiff's ADA claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing ADA claims against a proper defendant in the future;

4. Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages under the ADA is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice;

5. Plaintiff's demand for compensatory and injunctive relief under the ADA is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice; and
6. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, dkt. # 3, is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:June 28, 2017

/s/_________

Thomas J. McAvoy

Senior, U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Moran v. Deamelia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jun 28, 2017
1:17-CV-422 (TJM/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 28, 2017)
Case details for

Moran v. Deamelia

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS J. MORAN, Plaintiff, v. VICTOR P. DEAMELIA, AMANDA COLOMB, and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Jun 28, 2017

Citations

1:17-CV-422 (TJM/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 28, 2017)

Citing Cases

Muhammad v. Seiden

(“Although [the] defendants may have been aware of [the] plaintiff's alleged disabilities because his…

Muhammad v. Breen

(“Although [the] defendants may have been aware of [the] plaintiff's alleged disabilities because his…