Curry-Malcolm v. Rochester City School District et al
| Bernice Curry-Malcolm |
| Rochester City School District and Barbara Deane-Williams |
| 6:2018cv06450 |
| June 18, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Rochester Office |
| Monroe |
| David G. Larimer |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
55
DECISION AND ORDER The District's motion to dismiss 49 is granted in part, and denied in part. I find that the Second Amended Complaint (17-CV-6878, Dkt. #43 at paragraphs 473 et seq.) plausibly states a claim of unlawful retaliation in violat ion of Title VII and/or the ADEA, based on the District's alleged provision of inaccurate information to the NYSTRS in June 2019.The Court does not find that plaintiff has plausibly alleged any additional adverse actions by the District, aris ing out of her recall employment from November 2017 through April 2018. To the extent plaintiff has purported to do so, or has attempted to introduce entirely new claims by way of opposition papers, those claims are insufficiently stated, and are dis missed.The District is directed to file an answer to plaintiff's remaining retaliation claim within twenty (20) days of entry of this Decision and Order.Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 1/17/2024. (KAH)This was mailed to: Plaintiff Bernice Curry-Malcolm.
|
|
Filing
24
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff's motion seeking recusal (17-CV-6878, Dkt. #40) is denied.Further, the Court finds that the leave to file sanctions imposed in Malcolm I should be reinstated, in the manner and to the extent set forth ab ove.The Amended Complaint (17-CV-6878, Dkt. #39; 18-CV-6450, Dkt. 22 ) is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to file, within twenty (20) days of entry of this Decision and Order and without the need to seek f urther leave of Court, a Second Amended Complaint in this consolidated action, which sets forth the relevant facts and claims in a clear and concise manner, in conformity with Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8.Plaintiff is once again warned that she may not at tempt to reassert and should not include in her Second Amended Complaint any of the causes of action for which dismissal with prejudice was affirmed by the Second Circuit, nor may she raise any new claims that have been found untimely, or for which administrative remedies have not been exhausted. Such actions would be in violation of this Court's December 30, 2020 Decision and Order (17-CV-6878, Dkt. #34; 18-CV-6450, Dkt. 18 ). Plaintiff is warned that if the Second Amended Complaint fai ls to comply with Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8, and/or with the prior orders of this Court, it shall be subject to dismissal, with prejudice. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 4/6/2021. Copy of this Decision and Order sent by First Class Mail to Bernice Malcolm on 4/6/2021 to her address of record. (KAH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
|
|
Filing
14
DECISION AND ORDER I find that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and failed to state a claim against any defendant with respect to her Title VII, ADEA, NYSDHR and Equal Protection claims. Accordingly, defendants' motio n to dismiss the complaint 2 is granted, and the complaint is dismissed, with prejudice. Copy of this Decision and Order sent by First Class Mail to plaintiff Bernice C. Malcolm on 7/11/2019 to her address of record. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 7/11/2019. (KAH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
