Griffin v. Wekar, No. 7:2014cv01021 - Document 8 (N.D.N.Y 2014)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER: It is ordered that the Plaintiff's # 7 objections are hereby OVERRULED and the # 4 Report and Recommendation of Judge Dancks is hereby ADOPTED. The Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on December 8, 2014. A copy of this Decision & Order has been sent by the clerk to the Plaintiff via regular and certified mail. (rep)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Griffin v. Wekar Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ MANDI T. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. 7:14-CV-1021 MISTY WEKAR, Defendant. ________________________________________ DECISION & ORDER Thomas J. McAvoy, Senior District Judge. This pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourtenth Amendment and the No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301, et seq., was referred to the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). In the Report-Recommendation, dated July 9, 2014, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Magistrate Judge Dancks finds that no private cause of action exists under the No Child Left Behind Act, and that Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com specified proposed findings or recommendations to which the 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, this Court has determined to accept the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Dancks for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation. It is therefore ordered that: (1) Plaintiff’s Objections, dkt. # 7, to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Dancks, dkt. # 4, are hereby OVERRULED; (2) The Report-Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED; (3) Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 8 , 2014 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.
