Bell v. Kaleida Health et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:24-cv-00572-JLS-JJM Document 36 Filed 02/24/25 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NICOLE M. BELL,
Plaintiff,
V. 24-CV-572 (JLS) (JJM)

KALEIDA HEALTH, JONATHAN
HART, KIMBERLY WEAR; VANESSA
O’NEIL, UNIVERSITY OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK, by and
through the Board of Regents, LESTER
W. YOUNG, JR., Chancellor, Board of
Regents of the University of the State of
New York, in his official capacity, and
BETTY A. ROSA, Commissioner of the
New York State Education Department,
in her official capacity,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Nicole M. Bell, a former employee of Kaleida Health, commenced an
action in Supreme Court, Erie County on March 6, 2024 asserting various claims
against Defendants arising out of the termination of her employment as a Nursing
Supervisor. See Dkt. 1-1 at 6-23.1 Defendants removed the action on June 17, 2024.
Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Jeremiah J. McCarthy
for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 6.

On January 15, 2025, this Court issued a Decision and Order granting

Defendants’ motions to dismiss. See Dkt. 31. The Court also granted Plaintiff leave to

1 Page numbers refer to the CM/ECF stamped numbering in the header of each page.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:24-cv-00572-JLS-JJM Document 36 Filed 02/24/25 Page 2 of 3

file an Amended Complaint. See id. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal as to that
Decision and Order on February 13, 2025. Dkt. 35.

On February 4, 2025—before she filed her Notice of Appeal—Plaintiff moved to
remand the case to state court. Dkt. 32-33. The next day, Judge McCarthy issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this “motion be granted
without the need for responding submissions.” Dkt. 34. Neither party filed objections,
and the time to do so has expired.

Ordinarily, 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)(8).
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 agrees with Judge McCarthy’s conclusions in the R&R as to
Plaintiffs [32] Motion to Remand. But Plaintiffs [35] Notice of Appeal—filed after the
R&R was issued—divested this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the [82] Motion to
Remand that is the subject of the R&R. See Lupo v. Hum. Affs. Int'l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269,
271 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[Plaintiff] filed a motion to remand based upon lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, but filed a notice of appeal to this court prior to a ruling on that
motion by the district court. The filing of the notice of this appeal divested [the
district court] of jurisdiction to entertain the motion to remand”) (citing Griggs v.

Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (“The filing of a notice of

2

Case 1:24-cv-00572-JLS-JJM Document 36 Filed 02/24/25 Page 3 of 3

appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of
appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case
involved in the appeal”)).

The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiffs [32] Motion to Remand, without
prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. The case remains referred to Judge McCarthy in

accordance with the [6] referral order.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2025 _—
Buffalo, New York ) _
A PG gf
| ff - "ee (i /
E& , fo 4 \
Sc ial L- oN" i a
JOHN. “SINATRA, JR. a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE