Opinion
23-CV-584 (JLS)
04-25-2024
CHRISTINE RIORDAN, as Administrator of the estate of SEAN CHRISTOPHER RIORDAN, deceased, Plaintiff, v. ERIE COUNTY, SHERIFF JOHN C. GARCIA, JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Christine Riordan, as Administrator of the estate of Sean Christopher Riordan, initiated this action in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County. See Dkt. 1. Riordan asserts various claims against Defendants, arising from her son's detention at the Erie County Holding Center (“ECHC”), and death in June 2022. Id. Defendants answered and removed the case to this Court. Id. After this Court referred the case to Judge McCarthy, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt. 7.
This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. sections 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 2.
On March 20, 2024, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant Defendants' motion with respect to dismissal of Plaintiffs official capacity claims against the individual Defendants, but deny the balance of Defendants' motion. See Dkt. 17, at 18.
Neither party objected to the R&R, and the time to do so 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). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. 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, 149-50 (1985).
Although not required to do so here, the Court nevertheless reviewed Judge McCarthy's R&R. Based on that review, and absent any objections, the Court accepts the R&R's recommendation to grant Defendant's motion in part and deny it in part. Dkt. 17.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above and in the R&R, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs official capacity claims but DENIES the balance of Defendants' motion. See Dkt. 7. Plaintiffs official capacity claims are dismissed. See Dkt. 1. The case is referred back to Judge McCarthy consistent with the June 27, 2023 referral order. Dkt. 2.
SO ORDERED.