UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------x

JENNIFER CLARKE-GREEN,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 17-CV-778(EK)(VMS) -against-

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Defendant.

------------------------------------x ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Jennifer Clarke-Green brought this employment-discrimination action against the New York City Department of Education in February 2017.1 Am. Compl., ECF No. 18. The City Department of Education now moves for summary judgment. ECF No. 61. I referred that motion to Magistrate Judge Vera Scanlon for report and recommendation (“R&R”). Docket Order dated April 09, 2022. In an extremely comprehensive R&R dated August 02, 2022, Magistrate Judge Scanlon recommends that I grant the City Department of Education’s motion. R&R 2, ECF No. 64.2 Ms. Clarke-Green filed timely objections. Pl.’s Objections, ECF No. 65 (“Obj.”).

1 Defendants Kimberly Chance-Peart and Maurice De Govia were both dismissed from the case at the motion to dismiss stage. See ECF No. 29.

2 Page numbers in citations to record documents other than deposition transcripts refer to ECF pagination. After review of the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the fuller record, I adopt the recommendation in its entirety and grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). The district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which a party has specifically objected. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also Kruger v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd.,

(E.D.N.Y. 2013) (“A proper objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the R&R that the objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.”), aff'd,

(2d Cir. 2014). Here, the R&R marshals a torrent of undisputed facts in support of its recommendation that the DOE be granted summary judgment. Among other things, the defendant points to evidence that the plaintiff hit a student with a book, see R&R at 10-11,

38; that Plaintiff repeatedly failed to submit required classroom materials (including the “Friday Folder”) on time, see id. at 16; that she “shouted” at an assistant principal: “In the name of Jesus, I rebuke you,” and “Jesus is going to beat you,” id. at 18; that she failed to report (or file incident reports relating to) two student injuries that occurred in her classroom, id. at 19; and that her classroom pedagogy was generally lacking. Many of these events were the subject of factfinding (adverse to the Plaintiff) by the hearing officer in Plaintiff’s termination proceeding. See id. at 36-38. Against these facts, the R&R compellingly demonstrates, Plaintiff has adduced no material evidence of discriminatory animus outside of

her own highly general and conclusive testimony. Accordingly, and for the reasons set out in the R&R, I adopt the recommendation that the City Department of Education’s motion for summary judgment be granted in its entirety, notwithstanding Ms. Clarke-Green’s objections. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close the case. SO ORDERED.

__/s/ Eric Komitee ERIC KOMITEE United States District Judge

Dated: September 30, 2022 Brooklyn, New York