Reese v. FedEx Trade Networks, No. 1:2019cv01698 - Document 18 (W.D.N.Y. 2020)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER accepting and adopting the Report, Recommendation, and Order, Docket Item 17 . The plaintiff's motion to amend, Docket Item 12 , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: the motion to amend the complaint to add Counts IV and V is denied but is granted in all other respects. The case is referred back to Judge Roemer for further proceedings consistent with the referral order of February 19, 2020, Docket Item 7 . The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff and correct the case caption. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 12/8/2020. (MLA)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Reese v. FedEx Trade Networks Doc. 18 Case 1:19-cv-01698-LJV-MJR Document 18 Filed 12/08/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SAUNDRA REESE, Plaintiff, v. 19-CV-1698-LJV-MJR DECISION & ORDER FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS TRANSPORT & BROKERAGE, INC.,1 Defendant. On December 20, 2019, the plaintiff, Saundra Reese, commenced this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Docket Item 1. On February 19, 2020, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Docket Item 7. On April 30, 2020, Reese moved to amend her complaint, Docket Item 12; on May 14, 2020, the defendant, FedEx Trade Networks Transport & Brokerage, Inc., responded, Docket Item 13; and on July 9, 2020, Reese replied, Docket Item 14. On October 28, 2020, Judge Roemer issued a Report, Recommendation, and Order (“RR&O”)2 finding that the motion to amend should be denied insofar as it sought to add two new claims— Count IV (Retaliation) and Count V (Race Discrimination)—but otherwise granted. 1 As noted in the RR&O, the defendant is incorrectly named in the complaint. The Clerk of the Court shall update the case caption accordingly. 2 Because Judge Roemer denied a request to add new claims, effectively dismissing those claims, he fashioned his decision as a Report and Recommendation as to that request. See Docket Item 17. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-01698-LJV-MJR Document 18 Filed 12/08/20 Page 2 of 2 Docket Item 17. The parties did not object to the RR&O, and the time to do so now has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 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). The court must review de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 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, 149-50 (1985). Although not required to do so in light of the above, this Court nevertheless has reviewed Judge Roemer's RR&O as well as the parties’ submissions to him. Based on that review and the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Roemer's recommendation to grant the motion to amend in part. For the reasons stated above and in the RR&O, Reese’s motion to amend, Docket Item 12, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: the motion to amend the complaint to add Counts IV and V is denied but is granted in all other respects. The case is referred back to Judge Roemer for further proceedings consistent with the referral order of February 19, 2020, Docket Item 7. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 8, 2020 Buffalo, New York /s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo LAWRENCE J. VILARDO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
