Spaulding v.

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

12-CV-3041 (LDH) (VMS)

Motions

Motion to vacate : Denied Plaintiff

Judges

LaShann Moutique DeArcy Hall

Acts

Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — United States Magistrate Judges — Court Officers And Employees — Jurisdiction, Powers, And Temporary Assignment

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses Plaintiff Yvonne Spaulding's motion to vacate a settlement agreement entered into between her and Defendant New York City Department of Education. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon, who issued a Report and Recommendation advising denial of the motion. The Plaintiff filed a letter construed as an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court reviewed the objections and the record before issuing this order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Plaintiff's motion to vacate the settlement agreement should be granted.
Whether Plaintiff has satisfied the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) to be relieved from the judgment based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the opposing party.
Whether the Report and Recommendation contains any clear error requiring departure from its findings and conclusions.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

Plaintiff submitted a letter with exhibits construed as an objection to the Report and Recommendation.
She repeated arguments previously raised in her original motion to vacate and subsequent correspondence.
She sought relief to vacate the settlement agreement, consistent with earlier filings.

The opinion does not detail specific arguments from the Defendant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)	Pro se litigants' submissions are to be construed liberally to raise the strongest arguments suggested.	The Court construed Plaintiff’s letter as an objection despite it not being formally designated as such.
Mikinberg v. Baltic S.S. Co., 988 F.2d 327, 330 (2d Cir. 1993)	Supports liberal construction of pro se pleadings.	Reinforced the Court's approach to interpreting Plaintiff’s letter.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)	Requires specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.	Plaintiff’s objections were deemed inadequate for failing to raise specific objections.
Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002)	Merely referring to previously filed papers does not constitute an adequate objection.	Supported the Court’s rejection of Plaintiff’s repetitive arguments as insufficient.
Rothenberger v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't, No. 06-cv-868, 2008 WL 2435563, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 16, 2008)	Rejects objections that are merely lists of documents or facts without specific legal argument.	Further justified dismissal of Plaintiff’s objections as inadequate.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3)	Allows relief from judgment based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.	The Court found no evidence of such misconduct to warrant vacating the settlement agreement.
Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)	District court need only ensure no clear error exists on the face of the record when reviewing unobjected portions of a report.	The Court applied this standard to affirm the remaining portions of the Report and Recommendation.
Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)	Supports the standard for review of magistrate judge recommendations absent objections.	Guided the Court’s review of unchallenged findings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Scanlon, which recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the settlement agreement. Although Plaintiff filed a letter construed as an objection, the Court found it did not raise any specific objections to the factual findings or legal conclusions. Instead, Plaintiff repeated prior arguments and sought the same relief previously denied. The Court held that such generalized objections do not satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring specific written objections.

Furthermore, the Court agreed with the Report's finding that Plaintiff failed to meet the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), which requires evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the opposing party to justify relief from a judgment. The Court found no such evidence that would invalidate the settlement agreement.

As to the portions of the Report and Recommendation not specifically objected to, the Court applied the clear error standard and found none. Accordingly, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Plaintiff's motion to vacate the settlement agreement is DENIED in its entirety, and the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court.

Implications: The direct effect of this decision is the finality of the settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant, with judgment entered and the case closed. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling primarily enforces procedural standards for objections and the substantive standard for relief under Rule 60(b)(3).

Show full summary ...

YVONNE SPAULDING, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

LASHANN DEARCY HALL, United States District Judge

ORDER LASHANN DEARCY HALL, United States District Judge:

On December 28, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon issued a report and recommendation (the "Report and Recommendation"), which recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff Yvonne Spaulding's motion to vacate the settlement agreement, entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant New York City Department of Education. (See Pl.'s Mot. to Vacate, ECF No. 66; Stipulation of Dismissal, ECF Nos. 63, 65.) Any written objections to the Report and Recommendation had to be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the report; responses to any objections were due fourteen (14) days thereafter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

Plaintiff has filed a letter, with exhibits, which was received by this Court on January 10, 2017. (Pl.'s Jan. 10, 2017 Letter, ECF No. 78.) Although not identified as an objection, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court, as it must, construes her letter as an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and interprets it to raise the strongest arguments that it suggests. See Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994) (citing Mikinberg v. Baltic S.S. Co., 988 F.2d 327, 330 (2d Cir.1993)). The Court reviews the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects under a de novo standard of review. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1),(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Even under the more liberal standard afforded to pro se litigants, however, Plaintiff has failed to raise any specific objections to the findings of fact and conclusions of law that are set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Rather, Plaintiff has merely repeated arguments that were raised in her original motion to vacate the settlement agreement and subsequent correspondence to the Court. (See Pl.'s Mot. to Vacate; Pl.'s May 2, 2016 Letter, ECF No. 68; Pl.'s July 27, 2016 Letter, ECF No. 73.) Similarly, Plaintiff's "objection" seeks virtually the same relief that she sought in her motion to vacate, as well as throughout the course of this litigation. (See Pl.'s Mot. to Vacate; R. & R., at 5, 8-11, ECF No. 77 (explaining relief sought during litigation).) The Court finds Plaintiff's "objection" to be inadequate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (requiring "specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations"); see also Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Merely referring the court to previously filed papers or arguments does not constitute an adequate objection under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) or Local Civil Rule 72.3(a)(3)"); Rothenberger v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't, No. 06-cv-868, 2008 WL 2435563, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 16, 2008) (rejecting pro se plaintiff's basis for objection, in part, because it was "little more than a list of documents and facts that he believe[d] the court should have considered in arriving at its findings").

Finally, the Court agrees with the findings of the Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the standard for a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which permits a court to relieve a party from a judgment where there is evidence of "fraud . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). The Court finds there is no evidence that Plaintiff was induced into entering the settlement agreement by fraud, misrepresentation, or any other misconduct by Defendant.

No other objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation. As to the remaining portions of the Report and Recommendation, "the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as the entire record, and determined there was no such error.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, having reviewed the record and the remaining portions of the Report and Recommendation for clear error and, finding none, the Court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Scanlon's Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of this Court. Plaintiff's motion to vacate the settlement agreement is hereby denied in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case accordingly. Dated: March 31, 2017

Brooklyn, New York

SO ORDERED:

/s/ LDH

LASHANN DEARCY HALL

United States District Judge