From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Korzeniewski v. N.Y. State

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 22, 2013
12-CV-727 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2013)

Summary

finding no material adverse action under Title VII where "plaintiff allege[d] no extenuating circumstances attending the change of her work schedule by one half hour"

Summary of this case from Dudley v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Opinion

12-CV-727

11-22-2013

MELINDA KORZENIEWSKI, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RONALD W. MOSCICKI AS AIDER ABETTOR, AND HILDA ANCELET AS AIDER AND ABETTOR, Defendants.


DECISION AND ORDER

This employment discrimination case was referred to Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") and Ronald W. Moscicki ("Moscicki") each filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Dkt. Nos. 8 and 18) On July 19, 2013, Magistrate Judge Schroeder filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint be granted and that the action be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 28)

On February 6, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal dismissing defendant Hilda Ancelet from this action. (Dkt. No. 24)

Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 29) Defendants filed responses to plaintiff's objections (Dkt. Nos. 31 and 32) and the Court heard oral argument on October 2, 2013.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review, and after reviewing the submissions from the parties and hearing oral argument, the Court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Schroeder's recommendation to grant the motions to dismiss the complaint.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Schroeder's Report and Recommendation, defendant DOCCS' and defendant Moscicki's motions to dismiss the complaint are granted and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

________________

HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Korzeniewski v. N.Y. State

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 22, 2013
12-CV-727 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2013)

finding no material adverse action under Title VII where "plaintiff allege[d] no extenuating circumstances attending the change of her work schedule by one half hour"

Summary of this case from Dudley v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
Case details for

Korzeniewski v. N.Y. State

Case Details

Full title:MELINDA KORZENIEWSKI, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE, DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Nov 22, 2013

Citations

12-CV-727 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2013)

Citing Cases

Trostle v. New York

Other courts that have considered Collins have disagreed with this interpretation, holding instead that,…

Panagopoulos v. N.Y. State Dep't of Transp.

Other courts that have considered Collins have disagreed with this interpretation, holding instead that,…