TES DISTR KD Ne SED ep UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ss Px WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEB 10 2025 A Mig ew Loewencuin ew KRISTIN DAVIS, <STERW DISTRICT Plaintiff, v. 23-CV-116 (JLS) (JJM) STATE OF NEW YORK, OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH (BUFFALO PSYCHIATRIC CENTER) and ANN MARIE T. SULLIVAN, M.D. COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH, in her official capacity, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Kristin Davis initiated this action to pursue claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”). Dkt. 1; Dkt. 12; Dkt. 24. On May 16, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss. Dkt. 27. Plaintiff responded in opposition (Dkt. 31), and Defendants replied. Dkt. 34. On October 15, 2024, Judge McCarthy! issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion to the extent that it seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs Second Cause of Action, but otherwise deny the motion. Dkt. 36, at 15.2 On October 29, 2024, Defendants objected to the

| This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under

(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 7. 2 The page numbers refer to the CM/ECF pagination in the header of each page.

R&R—particularly to Judge McCarthy’s recommendation to deny the motion. Dkt. 37, at 6. Plaintiff responded (Dkt. 39), and Defendants replied. Dkt. 40. 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 McCarthy’s recommendation.

For the reasons stated above, and in the R&R, this Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED. The case is referred back to Judge McCarthy for further proceedings consistent with the June 28, 2023 referral order. Dkt. 7.

SO ORDERED. Dated: February 10, 2025 Buffalo, New York

JOHN LSINATRA, JR. YIETED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE