From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kennedy v. Lehman

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Sep 18, 2007
03-CV-531 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 18, 2007)

Summary

finding that a CBA with a provision for bidding on positions "did not create a protected property interest in being assigned to a particular job location, especially where plaintiff's job title, grade level and pay did not change as a result of the transfer"

Summary of this case from Twardosz v. Yonkers Pub. Sch. Dist.

Opinion

03-CV-531.

September 18, 2007


ORDER


This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On November 19, 2004, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 26, 2007, Magistrate Judge Feldman filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that defendants' motion be granted as to plaintiff's due process claim and "stigma-plus" defamation claim. As to plaintiff's first amendment retaliation claim, the Magistrate Judge recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to defendant County of Erie, and denied with respect to the individual defendants.

Both parties filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on July 23, 2007. Oral argument on the objections was held on September 17, 2007.

Plaintiff's counsel failed to appear at oral argument.

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 of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions and hearing argument from the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Feldman's Report and Recommendation, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff's due process claim and "stigma-plus" defamation claim. As to plaintiff's first amendment claim, the Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to defendant County of Erie, and denies defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the individual defendants.

Counsel shall appear for a meeting to set a trial date at 9:00 a.m. on September 28, 2007.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Kennedy v. Lehman

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Sep 18, 2007
03-CV-531 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 18, 2007)

finding that a CBA with a provision for bidding on positions "did not create a protected property interest in being assigned to a particular job location, especially where plaintiff's job title, grade level and pay did not change as a result of the transfer"

Summary of this case from Twardosz v. Yonkers Pub. Sch. Dist.

granting summary judgment for county on county employee's due process claim, court stated that "[t]he collective bargaining agreement (CBA) at issue here did not create any contractual rights sufficient to form the basis for a due process violation," and that "[p]laintiff's claim that he had a protected property interest in earning overtime pay is also without merit"

Summary of this case from Mac Fall v. City of Rochester
Case details for

Kennedy v. Lehman

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK A. KENNEDY, Plaintiff, v. MARIA LEHMAN, et al. Defendant

Court:United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: Sep 18, 2007

Citations

03-CV-531 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 18, 2007)

Citing Cases

Twardosz v. Yonkers Pub. Sch. Dist.

At least two courts have found that CBA-protected rights to a particular work assignment are not…

Mac Fall v. City of Rochester

Other district courts from within this circuit have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Henneberger v.…