Hopkins et al v. Booth, No. 1:2016cv01020 - Document 24 (W.D.N.Y. 2018)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 . The defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 10 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as specified. The defendant's motion to strike as to plaintiffs' ex hibits one through four is GRANTED and DISMISSED as to exhibit five. Defendant's motion to dismiss counts three and four is DISMISSED as moot. Count two in the amended complaint is dismissed, but counts one and three are referred back to Judge Foschio for further proceedings consistent with the referral order of August 21, 2017 13 . SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 1/17/2018. (CMD)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

Download PDF
Hopkins et al v. Booth Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___________________________________ COLLEEN HOPKINS, KATHRYN DISALVO, DOUGLAS MORRIS, Executor of the Estate of Margaret Morris, Plaintiffs, 16-CV-1020 DECISION AND ORDER v. JOHN S. BOOTH, III, Defendant. ___________________________________ On December 21, 2016, the plaintiffs commenced this action. Docket Item 1. On August 21, 2017, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under 28 United States Code Section 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Docket Item 13. On August 4, 2017, the defendant moved to dismiss counts two through five for failure to state a claim, Docket Item 10; on August 8, 2017, the plaintiffs responded, Docket Item 11, and filed an amended complaint, Docket Item 12; and on August 30, 2017, the defendant replied, Docket Item 15. On November 20, 2017, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation finding that the defendant's motion should be granted in part and denied in part. Docket Item 16. The parties did not object to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so now has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Indeed, on December 4, 2017—the day objections were due—the defendant answered the amended complaint. Docket Item 17. Dockets.Justia.com A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 United States Code Section 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Although not required to do so in light of the above, this Court nevertheless has reviewed Judge Foschio's Report and Recommendation as well as the parties’ submissions to him. Based on that review and the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Foschio's recommendation to grant in part the defendant's motion. For the reasons stated above and in the Report and Recommendation, the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Docket Item 10, is GRANTED as to the plaintiffs' negligence per se claim in count two but is DENIED as to the plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages in count one of the amended complaint; the defendant's motion to strike is GRANTED as to the plaintiffs' exhibits one through four and is DISMISSED as moot as to exhibit five; and the defendant's motion to dismiss counts three and four is DISMISSED as moot. Count two in the amended complaint is therefore dismissed, but counts one and three are referred back to Judge Foschio for 2 further proceedings consistent with the referral order of August 21, 2017, Docket Item 13. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 18, 2018 Buffalo, New York s/Lawrence J. Vilardo LAWRENCE J. VILARDO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.