Kirsch v. Board of Education of the Williamsville Central School District, No. 1:2015cv00721 - Document 41 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations in its entirety re 38 Report and Recommendations.; granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing with prejudice the Plaitniff's amended complaint. (Clerk to close case.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 7/8/19. (JMC)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kirsch v. Board of Education of the Williamsville Central School District Doc. 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________ KIM A. KIRSCH, DECISION AND ORDER No. 1:15-cv-00721 Plaintiff, -vs- BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE WILLIAMSVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants. ________________________________ Before the Court for review is Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr.’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of March 15, 2019. Docket. No. 38. This case was Honorable Michael A. Telesca on July 3, 2019. reassigned to the Docket No. 39. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court adopts the R&R in full. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Kim A. Kirsch commenced this action on August 13, 2015, asserting various claims for relief against defendants the Board of Education of the Williamsville Central School District, the Williamsville Central School District, and Scott G. Martzloff. Docket No. 1. complaint. On August 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended Docket No. 4. Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on October 15, 2015. Docket No. 8. The case was referred to Judge Schroeder for pretrial matters, as well as to hear and report upon dispositive motions. Docket No. 9. On April 11, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Docket Nos. 25-28. Plaintiff filed response papers on June 15, 2018 (Docket Nos. 31-33), and Defendants replied on July 16, 2018 (Docket No. 34). Judge Schroeder held oral argument Dockets.Justia.com on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on August 29, 2018. Docket No. 37. In a R&R dated March 15, 2019, Judge Schroeder recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 38. had fourteen At that time, both parties were notified that they days within which to file objections, and that “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time or to request an extension of such time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s Order.” Id. at 34. STANDARD The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the R&R. Plaintiff, See nor 28 U.S.C. Defendants, Judge Schroeder’s R&R. § 636(b)(1)(C). objected to any Here, neither portion of While a district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a R&R to which a party objects, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “[w]here no objection is made to a report and recommendation, or the parties make frivolous, conclusive, or general objections, only ‘clear error’ review is required by the district court,” see Teixeria v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 218, 222 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (citations omitted). “A judge of 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). -2- DISCUSSION As no objections were filed by either party, the Court has reviewed the R&R (Docket No. 38) for clear error, and finds none. The R&R is thorough, and well-supported by the record. carefully analyzing each of Plaintiff’s claims, as After well as reviewing the papers submitted by each party in connection with Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court agrees with Judge Schroeder’s recommendation that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the proposed findings in the R&R (Docket No. 38), for the reasons stated in the R&R. CONCLUSION Therefore, the R&R is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 25) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Docket No. 4) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED. S/Michael A. Telesca HONORABLE MICHAEL A. TELESCA United States District Judge DATED: July 8, 2019 Rochester, New York -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.
