Halimah Hassan v. Ascension Industries, Durco Filters, 600 Engineering MFG.

TES DISTRIC Sik Te UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT KD FILED COS WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ‘S MAY 19 2026 HALIMAH HASSAN Gpstee SEES STERN DISTROS Plaintiff, V. 25-CV-193 (JLS) (F) ASCENSION INDUSTRIES, DURCO FILTERS, ENGINEERING MFG., Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Halimah Hassan commenced this action on December 27, 2024, alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2200 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 §§ 621 et seq. See Dkt. 1-3.

Defendant removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 based on the fact that Plaintiffs claims arise under federal law over which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 7.

On March 4, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 4. Plaintiff opposed the motion, Dkt. 8, and Defendants replied. Dkt. 9. On March 24, 2026, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ [4] motion in its entirety. See Dkt. 16.

Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 19. Plaintiff objects to the portions of the R&R recommending dismissal of the Complaint based on Plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Dkt. 19, pp. 2-3.! Defendants opposed the objections, Dkt.

21, and Plaintiff did not file any reply.

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).

The Court carefully reviewed the R&R and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Foschio’s report and recommendation in its entirety.

For the reasons above and in the R&R, Defendants’ [4] motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety. Accordingly, the Complaint [1] is DISMISSED with Page numbers refer to the CM/ECF generated numbering in the header of each page.

For the reasons above and in the R&R, Defendants’ [4] motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety. Accordingly, the Complaint [1] is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk shall close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2025 ff fo Buffalo, New York / \ JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. UNI D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE iL”