Brown v. 7-Eleven Incorp. et al, No. 5:2020cv01339 - Document 15 (N.D.N.Y 2021)

Court Description: DECISION & ORDER: ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the Report-Recommendationof Magistrate Judge Lovirc, dkt. # 12 , are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 10 , is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The Plaintiff's Secon d Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice insofar as Plaintiff raises ADA claims and claims against Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter. Plaintiff's state-law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to re-pleading in an appropriate non-federal forum. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 3/15/2021. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(mgh)

Download PDF

Brown v. 7-Eleven Incorp. et al Doc. 15 Case 5:20-cv-01339-TJM-ML Document 15 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ JERAMIAH BROWN, Plaintiff, v. 5:20-CV-1339 (TJM/ML) 7-ELVEN INCORP., TIM HORTONS, and BRAD GOLDSTEIN, Defendants. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER Petitioner filed this action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and New York state law, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him because of his disability, defamed him, and violated an agreement to settle a previous federal claim Plaintiff brought regarding the discrimination at issue in this case. Plaintiff also attempted to state a claim for judicial misconduct, alleging that a judge who presided over an earlier matter had damaged his case. The Court referred the matter to the Hon. Miroslav Lovric, 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 December 15, 2020, recommends that the Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. See dkt. # 10. Magistrate Judge Lovric finds that Plaintiff knowingly and willfully agreed to settle the 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:20-cv-01339-TJM-ML Document 15 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 3 claims raised in this lawsuit when he resolved an earlier matter filed in this District, and that the settlement agreement contained an enforceable waiver preventing him from filing the claims raised here. In addition, Judge Lovric found that, even if Plaintiff had properly named Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter as a defendant in this matter, Magistrate Judge Baxter would be immune to suit. Because the Court lacked diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims, Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended that the Court dismiss those claims as well. Finally, Magistrate Judge Lovric found that amending the Complaint would be futile and recommended dismissing the action. Petitioner filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. See dkt. # 12. W hen a party objects to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation, 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 other issues raised in the Petitioner’s objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lovric for the reasons stated in the ReportRecommendation, with the exception that, having dismissed the federal-question claims in this case, the Court explicitly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. Courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . if . . . (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “Courts must consider ‘the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, 2 Case 5:20-cv-01339-TJM-ML Document 15 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 3 and comity’ when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.” Kroshnyi v. U.S. Pack Courier Servs., 771 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Carnegie-mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Still, “if a plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed before trial, ‘the state claims should be dismissed as well.’” Brzak v. UN, 597 F.3d 107, 113-114 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 250 (2d Cir. 2008)). Those claims will therefore be dismissed without prejudice to repleading in an appropriate state forum. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lovirc, dkt. # 12, are hereby OVERRULED. The ReportRecommendation, dkt. # 10, is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice insofar as Plaintiff raises ADA claims and claims against Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter. Plaintiff’s state-law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to re-pleading in an appropriate nonfederal forum. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 15, 2021 3

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.