Moody v. Broadview Federal Credit Union

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AMARI J. MOODY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	1:26-cv-00229 (AMN/DJS)
BROADVIEW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
AMARI J. MOODY
2390 Millwater Crossing
Dacula, Georgia 30019
Plaintiff pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On January 1, 2026, plaintiff pro se Amari J. Moody (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action
in the Southern District of New York, bringing claims against Broadview Federal Credit Union
(“Defendant”) pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”), and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”). See
Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt.
No. 2. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP on January 30,
2026.
On February 12, 2026, Chief Judge Swain transferred this matter to the Northern District
of New York. Dkt. No. 19. This matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J.
Case 1:26-cv-00229-AMN-DJS Document 24 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Stewart, who reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dkt. No. 21 at 3 (“Report-
Recommendation”).1 Magistrate Judge Stewart also reviewed various motions filed by Plaintiff.
Id. at 1; see Dkt. Nos. 12, 13, 17, 18.
On March 11, 2026, Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended that this Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims with leave to amend. 	Dkt. No. 21 at 12. 	Magistrate Judge Stewart also
recommended that the Court deny each of Plaintiff’s pending motions. Id. at 12-13. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Magistrate Judge Stewart advised that the parties had fourteen days within
which to file written objections and that failure to object to the Report-Recommendation within
those fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Id. at 13. No party has filed objections, and
the time for filing objections has expired.
For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation
that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223,
228 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	If no specific objections have been filed, this
Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen, 2 F. Supp.
3d at 229 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition). Similarly, if
an objection simply rehashes arguments originally presented to the magistrate judge, this Court
reviews the relevant portions of the report-recommendation for clear error. See id. at 228-29 &
n.6 (collecting cases). “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.’”
1 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
Case 1:26-cv-00229-AMN-DJS Document 24 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Dezarea W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-cv-1138, 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17,
2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-367, 2017 WL 5484663, at *1 n.1
(N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)).
“[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than
that accorded to ‘formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289,
295 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (additional citations
omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to “make reasonable allowances
to protect pro se litigants” from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a
legal education. Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). That said, “even a
pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at
particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal[.]” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-cv-13320, 2011
WL 3809920, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No.
22-cv-567, 2022 WL 16918287, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). After appropriate review, “the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Because no party has filed any objection to the Report-Recommendation, the Court reviews
the Report-Recommendation for clear error.
First, Magistrate Judge Stewart addressed Plaintiff’s motion to declare Chief Judge
Swain’s transfer order void pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see
Dkt. No. 18, recommending that the Court deny the motion because Plaintiff improperly cited 28
U.S.C. § 1391(e) as a basis for venue, failed to provide a factual basis for venue in the Southern
Case 1:26-cv-00229-AMN-DJS Document 24 Filed 04/16/26 Page 3 of 6

4
District of New York, and improperly put forth a merits argument to address the issue of venue.
Dkt. No. 21 at 6-7.
Turning to the merits of the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Stewart first evaluated Plaintiff’s
ADA and RA claims. Id. at 7-10. Magistrate Judge Stewart found that the Complaint failed to
“specify any particular physical or mental impairment” and included only vague and conclusory
assertions that Plaintiff has a documented medical disability. Id. at 9. Moreover, Magistrate Judge
Stewart found that Plaintiff failed to provide non-conclusory factual allegations explaining how
his alleged disability prevented him from participating in Defendant’s banking services—Plaintiff
merely put forth a vague allegation that his alleged disability limited his ability to “repeatedly
generate and submit documentation.” Id. (citing Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 13). Without more, Magistrate
Judge Stewart found that Plaintiff had not adequately alleged that, under Title III of the ADA or
Section 504 of the RA, he is a “qualified individual with a disability” or that he was “denied the
opportunity to participate in or benefit from defendant’s services, programs, or activities” because
of his alleged disability. See id. at 8 (quoting Ramrattan v. New York, No. 9:22-cv-00025, 2025
WL 2549075, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. July 9, 2025), report and recommendation adopted sub nom.
Ramrattan v. Guzman, 2025 WL 2315310 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2025) (internal quotations
omitted)). Thus, Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s first
cause of action pursuant to the ADA and second cause of action pursuant to the RA. Id. at 10.
As to the EFTA, Magistrate Judge Stewart found that Plaintiff failed to allege that “any
unauthorized electronic fund transfer was initiated in relation to his account or otherwise” as
required for a claim under the statute. Id. at 10-11; see Bernstein v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
775 F. Supp. 3d 701, 716 (S.D.N.Y. 2025), reconsideration denied, No. 24-cv-3552, 2025 WL
3753911 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2025). 	Magistrate Judge Stewart also found that Plaintiff’s
Case 1:26-cv-00229-AMN-DJS Document 24 Filed 04/16/26 Page 4 of 6

5
allegations that Defendant did not issue Plaintiff a replacement debit card and thereby prevented
access to electronic fund transfer services were not relevant to a claim under the EFTA. Dkt. No.
21 at 11. 	Thus, Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s third
cause of action pursuant to the EFTA. Id.
Finally, Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff leave to
amend and further advised Plaintiff that any such amended complaint must comply with Rules 8
and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 11-12.
As to Plaintiff’s pending motions, Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended denying
Plaintiff’s notice of structural defects and request for Article III supervisory review and Plaintiff’s
motion to compel emergency review. Id. at 12; see Dkt. Nos. 12, 17. Also, given his review of
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended that the
Court deny as moot Plaintiff’s motion to compel judicial assignment and issuance of an initial
screening order. Id. at 13; see Dkt. No. 13.
After reviewing the Report-Recommendation and considering Magistrate Judge Stewart’s
findings, the Court finds no clear error in the Report-Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court
adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 21, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion to declare transfer order void, Dkt. No. 18,
be DENIED; and the Court further
Case 1:26-cv-00229-AMN-DJS Document 24 Filed 04/16/26 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice and
with leave to amend; and the Court further
ORDERS that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing
date of this Order; and the Court further
ORDERS that, if Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, it shall be referred to
Magistrate Judge Stewart for review; and if Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint, the
Clerk is directed to close this case without further order of this Court; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s notice of structural defects and request for Article III supervisory
review, Dkt. No. 12, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel emergency review, Dkt. No. 17, be
DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion to compel judicial assignment and issuance of initial
screening order, Dkt. No. 13, be DENIED as moot; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 16, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:26-cv-00229-AMN-DJS Document 24 Filed 04/16/26 Page 6 of 6