STATES DISTRIG> FILED LG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ss By WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEB 2 4 2025 SE Uy □ Wyre Loewengui. Ow NICOLE M. BELL, “STERN DisTRICL Plaintiff, Vv. 24-CV-572 (JLS) (JJM) KALEIDA HEALTH, JONATHAN HART, KIMBERLY WEAR; VANESSA O’NEIL, UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by and through the Board of Regents, LESTER W. YOUNG, JR., Chancellor, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, in his official capacity, and BETTY A. ROSA, Commissioner of the New York State Education Department, in her official capacity, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Nicole M. Bell, a former employee of Kaleida Health, commenced an action in Supreme Court, Erie County on March 6, 2024 asserting various claims against Defendants arising out of the termination of her employment as a Nursing Supervisor. See Dkt. 1-1 at 6-23.1 Defendants removed the action on June 17, 2024. Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under

(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 6. On January 15, 2025, this Court issued a Decision and Order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss. See Dkt. 31. The Court also granted Plaintiff leave to

1 Page numbers refer to the CM/ECF stamped numbering in the header of each page.

file an Amended Complaint. See

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal as to that Decision and Order on February 13, 2025. Dkt. 35. On February 4, 2025—before she filed her Notice of Appeal—Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court. Dkt. 32-33. The next day, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this “motion be granted without the need for responding submissions.” Dkt. 34. Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. Ordinarily, 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 agrees with Judge McCarthy’s conclusions in the R&R as to Plaintiffs [32] Motion to Remand. But Plaintiffs [35] Notice of Appeal—filed after the R&R was issued—divested this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the [382] Motion to Remand that is the subject of the R&R. See Lupo v. Hum. Affs. Int'l, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 1994) (“[Plaintiff] filed a motion to remand based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but filed a notice of appeal to this court prior to a ruling on that motion by the district court. The filing of the notice of this appeal divested [the district court] of jurisdiction to entertain the motion to remand”) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,

(1982) (“The filing of a notice of

appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal”)). The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiffs [32] Motion to Remand, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. The case remains referred to Judge McCarthy in accordance with the [6] referral order.

SO ORDERED. Dated: February 24, 2025 _— Buffalo, New York ) — □ wT / Powe / fe tt bles Se JOHN □□□ SINATRA, JR. ie UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE