Isaac v. Garcia

ARIES DISTRICF ES FILED “<Q UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUN 25 2026 a een W, MOELLER, OS < ASHLEY ISAAC, as Executrix of the ZERN DISTRICL Estate of Shaun Humphrey, Deceased, Plaintiff, 24-CV-1007 (JLS) (LGF) Vv.

SHERIFF JOHN C. GARCIA, in his official and individual capacity as Sheriff of Erie County; ERIE COUNTY; HOLLY BRYANT; JOSEPH PULEO; THOMAS KNUPFER; PETE ATHANS; MICHAEL PERKINS; MARK SCANIO; TIMOTHY MCMAHON; KENNETH BIENKO; OWEN TIMM; LOUIS AUGUSTINE; PHIL ROBINSON; GAVIN ONEIL; ALEX SADOWSKI; JEFFREY HUBBARD; CHRISTOPHER IMHOF; JENNIPHER BURDICK; BRIAN THOMPSON; DANIEL HERBERGER; JOHN DOE 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff commenced this action, which alleges claims based on Shaun Humphrey’s death at the Erie County Holding Center, in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County, in August 2024. Dkt. 1-2. Defendant Sheriff Garcia—the only named Defendant at the time—removed the case to this Court in October 2024.

Dkt. 1.

Judge Foschio! issued a scheduling order setting various deadlines. Dkt. 6.

Later, Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. 8. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s motion but filed two amended complaints.?

Almost a year later, Plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended complaint and for a chance to respond to Defendants’? motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Dkt. 23. Defendants responded. Dkt. 24.

On February 17, 2026, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”),4 recommending that this Court deny Plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 25. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has passed.

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)(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)(8). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 2.

2 The parties accept the second amended complaint (Dkt. 12) as the operative pleading in this case, as did Judge Foschio.

3 The second amended complaint added additional Defendants.

4 The R&R was combined with a decision and order granting Plaintiffs request for a chance to respond to Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt.

25. Because no party objected to that order, it is not before this Court. 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 the relevant record. Based on that review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Foschio’s recommendation.

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, this Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Dkt. 23). The Court refers this case back to Judge Foschio, consistent with the referral order at Dkt. 2, and defers to Judge Foschio to set deadlines for further briefing on Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2026 Buffalo, New York JOHN L.SINATRA,JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE