Watson v. New York State United Teachers Union Local Librarians Association of the Buffalo and Erie County Public Library

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:23-cv-00356-JLS-LGF Document 32
Filed 01/23/26
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TRACEY WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS UNION LOCAL LIBRARIANS' ASSOCIATION OF THE BUFFALO AND ERIE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY,
Defendant.
STATE
FILED
UNI
ES DISTRICT COURT
JAN 2 2 2026
MARY C. LOEWENGUTH, CLERK WESTERN
DISTRICT OF NY
23-CV-356 (JLS) (LGF)
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff commenced this action on April 21, 2023, asserting state and federal claims surrounding the termination of her employment. Dkt. 1 at 1-10. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 8.
On May 1, 2025, Defendants1 moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. Dkt. 14. Plaintiff filed a response, Dkt. 18, and Defendants replied, Dkt. 20. Additionally, Plaintiff filed a motion to file an amended complaint, Dkt. 23, which Defendants opposed. Dkt. 27.
1 As Judge Foschio observes, the caption of the case incorrectly implies that there is a single defendant, when there are two defendants: "New York State United Teachers, and Librarians Association of the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library." Dkt. 31 at 2 n.2.
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

Case 1:23-cv-00356-JLS-LGF
Document 32 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 3
On December 23, 2025, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) addressing the motion to dismiss, Dkt. 14, and the motion to file an amended complaint, Dkt. 23. Dkt. 31. He recommends that this Court refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") claim. Id. at 27. He also recommends that this Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's remaining claims and deny Plaintiff's motion to amend with prejudice. Id. at 35. Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. See id.
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. § 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).
This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and, based on that review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court accepts Judge Foschio's recommendation.
Thus, for the reasons in the R&R: (1) this Court refrains from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NYSHRL claim; (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 14) Plaintiff's remaining claims is GRANTED; and (3) Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint (Dkt. 23) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall
2

Case 1:23-cv-00356-JLS-LGF Document 32 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 3
close this case. SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2026 Buffalo, New York
JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3