United States District Court, W.D. New York
Marilyn Cornelius, Buffalo, NY, pro se.
R. Scott Deluca, Schrader, Israely, Deluca & Waters LLP, Getzville, NY, for Defendant.
RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge.
The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On November 26, 2012, Magistrate Judge McCarthy filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that defendant Independent Health Association's motion to enforce the settlement agreement be denied and that no action be taken with respect to plaintiff's Report pursuant to § 2.3 of this Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution Plan.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record in this case, and the pleadings and materials submitted by the parties, and no objections having been timely filed, it is hereby
ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation, defendant Independent Health Association's motion to enforce the settlement agreement is denied. The Court will take no action with respect to plaintiff's Report pursuant to § 2.3 of
this Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution Plan.
The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for further proceedings.
REPORT, RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
JEREMIAH J. McCARTHY, United States Magistrate Judge.
This case has been referred to me by Hon. Richard J. Arcara for supervision of pretrial proceedings . Before me are motions by defendant Independent Health Association, Inc. (" IHA" ) to enforce a settlement agreement allegedly reached with plaintiff  and to file certain documents in connection with the enforcement motion under seal , along with plaintiff's Report pursuant to § 2.3 of this court's Alternative Dispute Resolution (" ADR" ) Plan , seeking sanctions for alleged violations of the Plan by IHA's attorney and the mediator.
Although oral argument had been scheduled, I conclude that it is not necessary. For the following reasons, IHA's motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part. Furthermore, I recommend that its motion to enforce the settlement agreement be denied, and that no action be taken with respect to plaintiff's Report.
The essential facts are undisputed. Plaintiff, acting pro se, commenced this action on August 19, 2011, seeking relief pursuant to Title VII (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. ) for alleged racial discrimination during her employment by IHA. Complaint . In accordance with this court's ADR Plan, a mediation was held at the mediator's office on August 22, 2012. DeLuca Affidavit [33-1], ¶ 10. IHA alleges that the parties reached a settlement agreement at the conclusion of the mediation, the terms of which included an " economic payment that would be made to Plaintiff" in return for the discontinuance of her claims. Id., ¶ 17.
According to IHA's attorney, Scott DeLuca, " [a]t the conclusion of the initial mediation session, there was no equivocation by either party that the case had fully and finally settled, and that the parties had a binding agreement to resolve this litigation" . Id., ¶ 24. Mr. DeLuca agreed to " prepare a written settlement agreement to memorialize all of the agreed-upon terms and conditions of the ...