Rotondo v. Best Buy Stores LLC, No. 5:2017cv00522 - Document 8 (N.D.N.Y 2017)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: that the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects and that the Plaintiff's complaint is Dismissed and that the file is referred back to Magistrate Judge Peebles for review of plaintiff's amended complaint. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 07/05/2017. (Copy of the Decision and Order was served on pro se plaintiff via regular mail on 7/5/2017.)(hmr)

Download PDF
Rotondo v. Best Buy Stores LLC Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------MICHAEL JOSEPH ROTONDO, Plaintiff, -v- 5:17-cv-522 (DNH/DEP) BEST BUY STORES LLC, Defendant. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: MICHAEL JOSEPH ROTONDO Plaintiff pro se 408 Weatheridge Drive Camillus, New York 13031 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Michael Joseph Rotondo brought this employment discrimination action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. On June 2, 2017, the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed but that he be granted leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and though premature and prior to the adoption or rejection of the Report-Recommendation by the undersigned, also filed an amended complaint. Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which Dockets.Justia.com plaintiff objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In accordance with the same, this matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Peebles for review of plaintiff's amended complaint. Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED; and 2. The file is referred back to Magistrate Judge Peebles for review of plaintiff's amended complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 5, 2017 Utica, New York. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.