Jules v. Chesner
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-05008
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jules v. Chesner, Judge Caproni granted defendants’ motion to dismiss after adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Evita Jules’s employment-discrimination, fraud, and conspiracy lawsuit was closed after the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The order also states that her inadequate and nonspecific objections preclude appellate review.
What happened
Evita Jules, representing herself, sued her former employers and others, alleging race and national-origin discrimination under federal, New York State, and New York City laws. She also alleged that the defendants and their attorney committed fraud and conspired to cause a state agency to dismiss her complaint.
The defendants moved to dismiss. A magistrate judge recommended granting that motion, but Jules objected only with general statements that the recommendation was wrong. Because her objections did not identify specific findings, the court reviewed the recommendation for obvious error rather than conducting a fresh review.
Judge Valerie Caproni found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to close the motion and the case, and the order states that Jules’s failure to make specific objections prevents appellate review of the decision.
The detailed version
- Jules v. Chesner · No. 1:19-cv-05008
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 7, 2020
Background
Evita Jules, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims against Cosmetic and Reconstruction Dentistry, Dr. Michael Chesner, and Dr. Robert B. Vogel. The opinion describes Chesner and Vogel as Jules’s former employers. Jules alleged employment discrimination based on race and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleged that the defendants and their attorney engaged in fraud and conspiracy intended to cause the New York State Division of Human Rights to dismiss her complaint.
Report and Recommendation
The defendants moved to dismiss on August 1, 2019. The court had referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Netburn for a report and recommendation, commonly called an R&R. Judge Netburn issued the R&R on December 17, 2019, and Jules filed objections on December 23, 2019.
A district court reviews specific objections to an R&R de novo, meaning through an independent review. When objections are general or conclusory, the court reviews the R&R only for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. The court also noted that objections from a party without a lawyer receive a more generous reading, but still must identify particular findings or recommendations.
The court found that Jules’s objections did not challenge any specific finding or recommendation. Instead, they generally described the R&R as erroneous and alleged that adopting it would impair her ability to pursue her rights. The court therefore reviewed the R&R for clear error and found none.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni adopted the R&R in its entirety and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to close the motion at docket entry 9 and close the case. The court further stated that Jules’s failure to file adequate and specific objections precluded appellate review of the decision. The opinion itself does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.