Order | Filed: October 06, 2026
| Entered: October 06, 2026
Killoran et al v. Westhampton Beach School District et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
Order Adopting Report and Recommendations Order on Motion to Dismiss Order on Report and Recommendations
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting 35 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations as to 36 Report and Recommendations.
Presently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation dated September 4, 2026, DE 36, of United States Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (hereinafter the "complaint") pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, DE 35 be granted in its entirety and any further leave to amend be denied. DE 36. Plaintiff Shannon Killoran ("Plaintiff") filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. DE 37.
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party makes specific and timely objections to a Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations as to dispositive motions, the district court must apply a de novo standard of review to the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the objection is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2010); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, "general or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge, are reviewed for clear error." Caldarola v. Town of Smithtown, No. 09-cv-272, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37280, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2011); see Vega v. Artuz, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18270, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002) (holding "objections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review of the magistrate's recommendations").
The Court has carefully reviewed and considered Plaintiff's objections and is not persuaded by the arguments set forth in her objections to the Report and Recommendation. Indeed, the Court finds that the objections fail to raise any colorable objection to the Report and Recommendation and principally restate the same contentions and conclusory allegations set forth in Plaintiff's motion papers. Because Plaintiff's objections largely consist of general conclusory arguments as well as facts and issues that were presented to Judge Dunst, the undersigned may review the Report and Recommendation for clear error.
Nevertheless, although de novo review is not required, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation in an abundance of caution. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff's objections, the motion papers, the applicable law, and having conducted a careful review of the Report and Recommendation de novo, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned and exceedingly thorough Report and Recommendation dated September 4, 2026, DE 36, of Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Caldarola, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37280, at *1; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002); Piroleau v. Caserta, No. 10-CV-5670 (SJF), 2012 WL 5389931, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2012).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss, DE 35, is granted and any further leave to amend is denied.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 10/6/2026.
(LJ)