Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Saraiya Solomon v. Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County

May 27, 2011

SARAIYA SOLOMON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HUMAN SERVICES COALITION OF TOMPKINS COUNTY, INC.; LEE DILLON, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; CHRISTINE BARKSDALE, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; JAMES A. BROWN, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; PATRICIA CAREY, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; SUSAN DALE-HALL, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; DAVID G. EVELYN, M.D., AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; JIM HULL, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; JOHN T. LEMLEY, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; SAOIRSE MCCLORY, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; DEBORAH MOHLENHOFF, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; SHAWN MARTEL MOORE, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; RON PROVUS, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; LENORE SCHWAGER, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; REVEREND PHILIP SNYDER, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; CAL WALKER, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; NANCY ZAHLER, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; EDWARD SWAYZE, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; FRANCINE SPADAFORA-MANZELLA, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; CITY FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S ORGANIZATION OF ITHACA, NEW YORK; SARAH JOHNSON, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; JIM DENNIS, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY; AND M. KATHLEEN SCHLATHER, AS AGENT OF AND INDIVIDUALLY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court in this pro se civil rights action, filed by Saraiya Solomon ("Plaintiff") against the above-captioned Defendants, is United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter's Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's causes of action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii) to the extent that they are premised on a violation of one or both of two criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245, or asserted on behalf of a third party. (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. For the reasons that follow, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; and Plaintiff's causes of action are dismissed with prejudice to the extent that they are premised on a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and/or 18 U.S.C. § 245, or asserted on behalf of a third party.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on February 28, 2011. (Dkt. No. 1.) Generally, in her Complaint, Plaintiff, a black female, alleges that, beginning in June 2009, she was subject to discrimination as a participant in an employment program known as the Senior Community Service Employment Program ("SCSEP"), administered by Experience Works, an organization funded by the United States Department of Labor ("USDOL"). (Id.) More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, while she was assigned by SCSEP to Defendant Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County, Inc. ("HSC") for on-the-job training and transition into the workforce, certain Defendants discriminated against her because of her race and retaliated against her when she complained about this discrimination to the USDOL. (Dkt. No. 1.)

Based on these (and other) factual allegations, Plaintiff asserts the following thirteen causes of action against Defendants: (1) "Deprivation of [Plaintiff's Right of] Equal Access [to SCSEP]" based on her race (under 42 U.S.C. § 2000, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); (2) "Conspiracy to Deprive [Plaintiff] of [Her] Civil Rights" based on her race (under 18 U.S.C. § 241, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); (3) "Willful Interference [with] and Oppression of [Plaintiff's Engagement in] a Protected Activity" based on her race (under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); (4) "Retaliation [Against Plaintiff]" based on her race (under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); (5) "Tortious Interference with [Plaintiff's] Contract[ual Rights]" based on her race (under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); (6) "Adverse Effect on [Plaintiff's] Training/Employment Status" based on her race (under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); (7) "[Discrimination Against Plaintiff Regarding the] Privileges Terms and Conditions of [Her] Employment" based on her race (under 18 U.S.C. § 245, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); (8) "Imposition of Race-Biased Training/Employment Standard [on Plaintiff]" based on her race (under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); (9) "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm [on Plaintiff]" based on her race (under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); (10) "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress [on Plaintiff]" based on her race (under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); (11) "Intentional Interference with [Plaintiff's] Contractual Relations" based on her race (under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); (12) "Intentional Interference with [Plaintiff's] Prospective Economic Advantage" based on her race (under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, N.Y. Human Rights Law, and New York State common law); and (13) "[Violation of the] Duty of Care [Owed to Plaintiff]" based on her race (Id. at ¶¶ 24-88).*fn1

For a more detailed recitation of Plaintiff's causes of action and factual allegations, the Court refers the reader to the Complaint in its entirety, and to Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 1 and 4.)

B. Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation

On March 4, 2011, Magistrate Judge Baxter issued an Order and Report-Recommendation in which he (1) granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and (2) recommended that Plaintiff's causes of action alleging violations of criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245, or asserting claims on behalf of a third party, be dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 4.) In support of his recommendation that Plaintiff's causes of action based on federal criminal statutes 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245 be dismissed, Magistrate Judge Baxter pointed out that no private right of action exists under these federal criminal statutes. (Id.)*fn2 In addition, in support of his recommendation that the portions of Plaintiff's Complaint attempting to assert claims on behalf of "clients" (i.e., third parties) be dismissed, Magistrate Judge Baxter pointed out that (1) litigants generally "do not have standing to assert the rights of others[,]" and the exceptions to this rule "do not apply in this case," and (2) "[i]n any event, [P]laintiff does not state that she is raising a claim for her unnamed 'client.'" (Id.)*fn3

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Standard of Review Governing a Report-Recommendation

When specific objections are made to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).*fn4

When only general objections are made to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation (or the objecting party merely repeats the allegations of his pleading), the Court reviews for clear error or manifest injustice. See Brown v. Peters, 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997) (Pooler, J.) [collecting cases], aff'd without opinion, 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir. 1999).*fn5 Similarly, when a party makes no objection to a portion of a report-recommendation, the Court reviews that portion for clear error or manifest injustice. See Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) [citations omitted]; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition [citations omitted]. After conducting the 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).

B. Standard Governing Review of Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e) and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.