Chaney v. Raybens Enterprises et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
NAKIA CHANEY,
Plaintiff,
1:25-CV-1300
v. 	(GTS/DJS)
RAYBENS ENTEPRISES, a/k/a Green Facilities
Solutions; RAYTICE SPENCER; DONNA MACKEY;
JOSE MARRUCCI; ALBERTO PUERTAS; GREEN
FACILITIES SOLUTIONS, a/k/a Raybens Enterprises;
and STATE OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
NAKIA CHANEY
Plaintiff, Pro Se
c/o Lisa Teamer
15-17 Third Street
Troy, New York 12180
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Nakia Chaney
(“Plaintiff”) against Raybens Enterprises, Green Facilities Solutions, Manager Jose Marrucci,
employees Raytice Spencer, Donna Mackey, and Alberto Puertos, and the State of New York
(“Defendants”), are the following: (1) United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed
with prejudice, that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Marrucci under Title VII be dismissed
with prejudice, that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Raybens Enterprises and Green
Case 1:25-cv-01300-GTS-DJS Document 11 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Facilities Solutions under Title VII be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies, and that Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed without prejudice to
refiling in state court within the governing limitations period; and (2) Plaintiff’s Objections to the
Report-Recommendations. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10.)
Even when construed with the utmost of special leniency, Plaintiff’s one-page Objections
contain no specific challenge1 to any portion of the Report-Recommendation. 	(Compare Dkt.
No. 10 with Dkt. No. 9.) In any event, even if Plaintiff’s Objections could be liberally construed
as containing specific challenges to various portions of the Report-Recommendation, the Court
finds no error2 in such portions, and no clear error3 in the remaining portions of the Report-
1 	To be "specific," an objection must, with particularity, "identify [1] the portions of
the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis
for the objection." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c); see also Mario v. P&C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d
758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Although Mario filed objections to the magistrate's report and
recommendation, the statement with respect to his Title VII claim was not specific enough to
preserve this claim for review. The only reference made to the Title VII claim was one sentence
on the last page of his objections, where he stated that it was error to deny his motion on the Title
VII claim ‘[f]or the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.' This bare statement, devoid of any reference to specific findings or
recommendations to which he objected and why, and unsupported by legal authority, was not
sufficient to preserve the Title VII claim.").
2 	When a specific objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's
report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de
novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
3 	When no specific objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court
subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory
Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear error review, "the court need
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation." Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) ("I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
Case 1:25-cv-01300-GTS-DJS Document 11 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (See generally Dkt. No. 9.) As a result,
the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted for the reasons set forth therein. (Id.)
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the following claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 5) are
DISMISSED with prejudice:
(1) 	Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims; and
(2) 	Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Marrucci under Title VII; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Raybens Enterprises and Green
Facilities Solutions under Title VII in his Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 5) are DISMISSED
without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state law claims in his Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 5) are
DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in state court within the governing limitations
period.
Dated: March 24, 2026
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
United States District Judge
magistrate judge's] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 1:25-cv-01300-GTS-DJS Document 11 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 3