Yzaguirre v. Levin

Background

Jace R. Yzaguirre sued Dave Levin and other defendants. The second amended complaint alleged violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Lanham Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under New York law. Yzaguirre represented himself.

Magistrate Judge Gary Stein recommended granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. After receiving an extension, Yzaguirre filed documents that the district court treated as a timely objection. He also filed later letters elaborating on his position and seeking additional time to object.

Court’s analysis

The district court reviewed the portions of the recommendation that Yzaguirre specifically challenged under a fresh review standard. It reviewed the unchallenged portions only for obvious error. The court held that Yzaguirre’s objection addressed only the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress and Title VI claims. His general references to earlier filings were not specific objections requiring fresh review.

For the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, the court agreed that Yzaguirre had not plausibly alleged that his physical safety was actually endangered or that he feared for his physical safety as a result of Defendants’ conduct. The court found that the cited correspondence with an Federal Bureau of Investigation agent did not show fear for his safety, that a police report referred only to harassment, and that preparing a will did not plausibly show a legitimate fear for his physical safety. The court also agreed that he had not alleged one of the particular forms of this claim recognized by New York courts.

For the Title VI claim, the court agreed that Yzaguirre had not plausibly alleged intentional discrimination, which the court identified as required for that claim. The objection repeated earlier, vague assertions and did not address the recommendation’s reasons for dismissal.

Yzaguirre did not specifically challenge the recommendation’s treatment of his other claims. The court stated that Judge Stein’s recommendation contained no clear error. The court also agreed that Yzaguirre should not receive another opportunity to amend because he had already amended his complaint twice, the defects identified in the recommendation made further amendments futile, and he had not requested leave to amend.

Rulings

The court adopted Judge Stein’s report and recommendation in its entirety, overruled Yzaguirre’s objections, and granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. The court denied as moot Yzaguirre’s request to withdraw all claims against Defendant Vasquez because the complaint was being dismissed in its entirety. It also denied his request for additional time to file objections concerning dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The clerk was directed to enter judgment of dismissal, close the motions, and close the case.