Jessica Yager v. United Access LLC; United Access LLC v. Jeff Curts

TMES DISTRIC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Cor WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK S ee JESSICA YAGER, Oe ~ EES Plaintiff, v. 26-CV-511 (JLS) (JJM) UNITED ACCESS LLC, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, v. JEFF CURTS, Third Party Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff commenced this action on February 3, 2026, alleging hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of state and federal law. See Dkt. 1-1 at 6-9.! Defendant United Access LLC removed the action to this Court on March 18, 2026. See Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 686(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 5.

Plaintiff moved to proceed anonymously, Dkt. 12, and to remand this action to state court on April 14, 2026. Dkt. 13.

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

On April 15, 2026, Judge McCarthy issued a Report, Recommendation, and Order (R&R) which: (1) recommended that this Court deny Plaintiffs [13] motion to remand; and (2) denied Plaintiffs [12] motion to proceed anonymously. Dkt. 14 at 5. Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. See id. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 6386(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 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)(3). And it must modify or set aside any part of a magistrate judge’s order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). An order “is clearly erroneous or contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Tracy v. NVR, Inc., 791 F. Supp. 2d 340, 342 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 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 (19885).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and relevant record. Based on that review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts Judge McCarthy’s recommended disposition of Plaintiffs [13] motion to remand to the extent necessary in light of Plaintiffs granted motion to withdraw (Dkt. 29),? and affirms his order denying Plaintiffs [12] motion to proceed anonymously.

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs [13] motion to remand. The balance of the R&R is affirmed. The Court refers the case back to Judge McCarthy consistent with the referral order at Dkt. 5.

SO ORDERED. 7) Dated: May 29, 2026 / ff Buffalo, New York L \ Jy } JOHN. SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE After Judge McCarthy issued the [14] R&R, Plaintiff moved to withdraw her motion to remand. Dkt. 24. Judge McCarthy granted that motion (Dkt. 29), and there otherwise have been no objections.