United States District Court, N.D. New York
October 7, 2014
SUSAN AFONSO, Plaintiff,
ALBANY MEDICAL CENTER; CAPITAL DISTRICT PSYCHIATRIC CENTER; and ELLIS HOSPITAL, Defendants.
LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on September 8, 2014, by the Hon. Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 5 ("Report-Recommendation").
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). "If no objections are filed... reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error." Edwards v. Fischer , 414 F.Supp.2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Cephas v. Nash , 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) ("As a rule, a party's failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge's report waives further judicial review of the point."); Farid v. Bouey , 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Upon review, the Court finds that Judge Treece erred in concluding that none of Defendants acted under color of state law. See Report-Rec. at 4. Defendant Capital District Psychiatric Center ("CDPC") is operated by the New York State Office of Mental Health, and thus is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Capital District Psychiatric Center (May 20, 2013), http://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/facilities/cdpc/facility.htm. However, because Plaintiff seeks only damages against CDPC, her claims are barred under the Eleventh Amendment. See Roosevelt Council v. New York, No. 08-CV-1158, 2008 WL 5243887, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2008) (Kahn, J.) ("The law is well established that under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, both the State of New York and its subdivisions are immune from suits [for damages under § 1983]."). Therefore, the error is harmless.
The Court has reviewed the remainder of the Report-Recommendation for clear error and finds none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as modified; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties to this action in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.