Noe v. Ray Realty

Background

Carol Noe, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Ray Realty, Zavisa Zecevic, John Militec, Julia Zecevic, Dejan Zecevic, and unidentified defendants. She alleged disability discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion describes the defendants as the owners and/or landlords of the building where Noe resides. Noe sought a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to provide short-term relief, and a preliminary injunction, an order intended to provide relief while a case continues. She appeared to seek an order stopping a housing-court proceeding brought against her for nonpayment of rent.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended denying both motions for injunctive relief. Noe filed objections after receiving several extensions of time. The district court explained that it reviews specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation independently, but reviews general or repetitive objections for clear error. Clear error means an obvious mistake in the recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Noe’s argument that Judge Wang lacked authority because the parties had not consented to the magistrate judge’s involvement. It explained that a district judge may refer pretrial matters and requests for injunctive relief to a magistrate judge for proposed findings and recommendations. Noe’s later withdrawal of her consent to have the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings did not undo the separate referral for a report and recommendation.

The court also rejected Noe’s arguments concerning cases she said were controlling. It stated that, in the Southern District of New York, only decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals are binding on the district court. It further concluded that the cases Noe cited were either addressed and distinguishable or did not concern the issues involved in her motions. The court found that Judge Wang had considered Noe’s second motion, complaint, and supporting exhibits. The opinion also states that Noe’s § 1983 claim was not plausibly pleaded because the defendants were not state actors and Noe did not allege that they acted under color of state law. The court noted in a footnote that any Americans with Disabilities Act claim against private landlords would fail for the reasons stated there.

Ruling

Judge Abrams adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Noe’s motions for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. It found no clear error, and stated that the result would be the same even under independent review. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Docket Entries 38 and 68 and mail a copy of the order to Noe. The order did not dismiss the underlying action.