Samuel Quinones v. Basil Chevrolet, Inc., Basil Chevrolet Buick Cadillac LLC,...

SSINTES DISTRIC? o> ae FILED Gs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ss WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MAR 2 3 2026 Nop t<ey lig x st W. woe cs SAMUEL QUINONES, N DISTR Plaintiff, v. 25-CV-416 (JLS) (MJR) BASIL CHEVROLET, INC., BASIL CHEVROLET BUICK CADILLAC LLC, JOE BASIL CHEVROLET, INC., and BASIL CHEVROLET BUICK GMC LLC, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Samuel Quinones commenced this action on May 13, 2025, alleging claims based on disparate treatment discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation, pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. See Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 9.

On July 14, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. Dkt. 8.

Plaintiff opposed the motion, Dkt. 10, and Defendants replied. Dkt. 11. On September 11, 2025, Judge Roemer held a hearing on Defendants’ motion. Dkt. 138. On January 9, 2026, he issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint. Dkt. 14. Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. Jd.

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 and, based on that review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court accepts Judge Roemer’s recommendation.

Thus, for the reasons in the R&R, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 8, is DENIED. The case is referred back to Judge Roemer consistent with the July 15, 2025 referral order. See Dkt. 9.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2026 / Buffalo, New York ( □□ D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE