Sawyers v. McMahon
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-05494
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sawyers v. McMahon, Judge Engelmayer adopted the recommendation and denied plaintiffs’ motion to return the case to state court.
The plaintiffs’ request to return the case to New York state court was denied; the case remained in federal court under Magistrate Judge Aaron’s supervision.
What happened
In Sawyers v. McMahon, plaintiffs, representing themselves, opposed defendants’ removal of their case from New York state court to federal court. They asked the federal court to send the case back to state court.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion. Because no party objected, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It adopted the recommendation in full.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied plaintiffs’ motion for remand and directed the Clerk to close that motion. The case remained under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
The detailed version
- Sawyers v. McMahon · No. 1:23-cv-05494
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 17, 2023
Background
Wilfredo Sawyers and the other plaintiffs proceeded without lawyers and brought claims against Christine McMahon and Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc. They sought damages and equitable relief under, among other provisions, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988. Defendants removed the case from the New York State Supreme Court in New York County to the federal court.
Plaintiffs filed a notice opposing removal. The court treated that notice as a motion for remand, meaning a request to send the case back to state court. Judge Engelmayer referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Aaron recommended that the motion be denied. The Report and Recommendation was mailed to plaintiffs, but no party filed objections.
Because there were no objections, Judge Engelmayer reviewed the report for clear error rather than conducting a new review of the disputed issues. He found no facial error in the report’s conclusions and adopted it in its entirety. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review, as the report had warned.
Ruling
The court accepted and adopted Judge Aaron’s August 1, 2023 Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied plaintiffs’ motion for remand. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket number 14, and the case remained under Judge Aaron’s supervision. This order addressed the removal and remand issue; the opinion does not decide the merits of plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.