ATES DISTRI OS FED LO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ss T 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUN 26 2024 SS Ay, LY Wpcte LOEWENGUTY a wi HOMESTEAD REPAIR & TERN DISTRICLS RENOVATION, INC., and BECKY MARINACCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 21-CV-388 (JLS) (HKS) Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, BYRON W. BROWN, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Buffalo, KEVIN HELFER, in his capacity as Commissioner of the City of Buffalo Parking Violations Bureau, and SENSYS GATSO USA, INC., Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER In this putative class action, Plaintiffs challenge the use of a photo speed monitoring system in a school zone designated for Buffalo Promise Neighborhood Academy (“BPN Academy”). See Dkt. 15. The operative Complaint (Dkt. 15), which seeks declaratory judgment and other relief, names the following Defendants: City of Buffalo, Byron W. Brown (in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Buffalo), Kevin Helfer (in his capacity as Commissioner of the City of Buffalo Parking Violations Bureau) (collectively, the “City Defendants”), and Sensys Gatso USA, Inc. (“Sensys”). See Dkt. 15.

Defendants removed the case from state court on March 12, 2021. Dkt. 1. This Court then referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder for all proceedings under

(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 7. Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. See Dkt. 40 (Plaintiffs); Dkt. 41 (the City Defendants); Dkt. 42 (Sensys). The parties filed their respective motions on April 18, 2023, see

and briefing followed. See Dkt. 44-49. On February 21, 2024, Judge Shroeder issue a Report, Recommendation, and Order (“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motions (Dkt. 41, 42), and deny Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. 40). See

Plaintiffs objected to the R&R. Dkt. 56. They argue that Judge Schroeder incorrectly concluded that: (1) BPN Academy was a “school” for purposes of the relevant statue; (2) no violation of Plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights occurred; and (3) there is no basis for a claim for unjust enrichment. See

Plaintiffs argue, in the alternative, that they are entitled to a trial. See

Defendants opposed the objections, Dkt. 60, 61, and Plaintiffs replied. Dkt. 64. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither

nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections briefing, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Schroeder's recommendation. For the reasons above and in the R&R, Plaintiffs [40] motion is DENIED, and Defendants’ [41, 42] motions are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 26, 2024 Buffalo, New York co f JO . SINATRA, JR caer ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE