Nicole M. Bell v. Kaleida Health, Jonathan Hart, Kimberly Wear; Vanessa O’Neil,...

ATES DIST EL oe FILED □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □□ WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | FEB 19 2026 eee Lap cw NICOLE M. BELL, 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. On July 19, 2024, this Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 686(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C).

Dkt. 6.

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

Before the Court is Judge McCarthy’s [46] Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) addressing Plaintiff's [42] Second Motion to Remand to State Court. Plaintiff filed her motion on December 1, 2025. Dkt. 42. Defendants opposed the motion, Dkt. 44, and Plaintiff submitted a letter indicating that she elects not to file a reply. Dkt. 45.

Judge McCarthy issued the R&R on December 29, 2025. Dkt. 46. He recommends that this Court grant Plaintiffs [42] motion for remand. See id. at 1.

Defendants objected to the R&R. Dkt. 49. They argue that: (1) the goals of judicial economy and convenience are best served by dismissal, not remand; (2) Plaintiffs procedural conduct in this litigation supports dismissal over remand; and (8) Plaintiffs stated concerns over the statute of limitations and service do not support remand. Seeid. Plaintiff opposed the objections, Dkt. 51, and Defendants replied.

Dkt. 52.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 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, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (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 above and in the R&R, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs [42] motion for remand. The clerk of court shall close this case and effectuate the remand.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2026 ae Buffalo, New York f Ub fe JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE