govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-1_25-cv-01789-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
 
RICHIE FOSTER LEVINE, 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
CENTERS FOR CARE, LLC d/b/a Centers Health Care, 
and CLR TROY, LLC d/b/a Troy Center for Rehabilitation 
and Nursing, 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
1:25-cv-1789 (BKS/CBF) 
Appearances: 
Plaintiff pro se: 
Richie Foster Levine 
Schenectady, NY 12306 
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge: 
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER 
I. INTRODUCTION 
Plaintiff pro se Richie Foster Levine commenced this action asserting claims against 
Defendants Centers for Care, LLC and CLY Troy, LL, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, other federal 
statutes and regulations, and state law. (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff also sought leave to proceed in 
forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 2). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge 
Carla B. Freedman for an initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Local Rule 
72.3(d). On April 17, 2026, Magistrate Judge Freedman issued a Report-Recommendation 
granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP and recommending the dismissal of some claims 
and that other claims be permitted to proceed. (Dkt. No. 6). Magistrate Judge Freedman informed 
Plaintiff that he had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the Report-
Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and that the failure to object within fourteen days 

2 
would preclude appellate review. (Id. at 11–12). No objections to the Report-Recommendation 
have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in part and 
rejected in part. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
As neither party has filed objections, the Court has reviewed the Report-
Recommendation for clear error. See Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP, 158 F.4th 349, 
359 (2d Cir. 2025); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. 
III. DISCUSSION 
The Court finds no clear error in the Report-Recommendation’s analysis and 
recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Federal Nursing Home 
Reform Act of 1987 (“FNHRA”), False Claims Act (“FCA”), and the Emergency Medical 
Treatment & Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”). (Dkt. No. 6). The Report-Recommendation 
further recommends directing Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s “remaining claims,” but does 
not identify which claims should be allowed to proceed. (Dkt. No. 6, at 10). As it is beneficial for 
the parties to have a clear recitation of the claims that are proceeding in this case, the Court 
briefly discusses those claims. 
Construed liberally, in addition to the claims identified above, the Complaint may be read 
to assert the following claims against Defendants Center for Care and CLR Troy: (1) 
discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 
U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; (2) discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; (3) discrimination and denial of a reasonable accommodation, in 
violation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), 124 Stat. 260, 42 U.S.C. § 
18116; (4) failure to provide necessary care and services, in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 483.24; (5) 
discrimination in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et 

3 
seq.; (6) discrimination based on creed and disability in violation of the New York Executive 
Law § 296; (7) discrimination based on creed and disability, in violation of New York Civil 
Rights Law § 40-c; (8) false imprisonment; (9) unjust enrichment; (10) intentional infliction of 
emotional distress; and (11) denial of adequate medical care, in violation of New York Public 
Health Law § 2801-d. As noted, the Report-Recommendation recommended that Defendants be 
directed to respond to these claims. (Dkt. No. 6, at 10). The Court agrees with one exception. To 
the extent Plaintiff brings a claim against Defendants for failure to provide necessary care and 
services, in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 483.24, such claim is subject to dismissal because there is no 
private cause of action under 42 C.F.R. § 483.24. See Udoinyion v. Gouverneur Health Care 
Svcs., 18-cv-1055, 2018 WL 4539652, at *2, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161325, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 20, 2019) (dismissing the plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 483.10 et seq. on the ground 
that the “federal regulations related to requirements for residents in long-term care facilities” in 
42 C.F.R. Part 483, “do not provide a private cause of action” (citing Schneller v. Crozer Chester 
Med. Ctr., 387 F. App’x 289, 293 (3d Cir. 2010)). 
Accordingly, to the extent the Report-Recommendation recommends that Plaintiff’s 
claim under 42 C.F.R. § 483.24 proceed, it is rejected; the Report-Recommendation is otherwise 
accepted in its entirety. 
IV. LEAVE TO AMEND 
“Generally, leave to amend should be freely given, and a pro se litigant in particular 
should be afforded every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he has a valid claim.” 
Matima v. Celli, 228 F.3d 68, 81 (2d Cir 2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 
A pro se plaintiff should have at least one chance to amend if “a liberal reading of the complaint 
gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Nielsen v. Rabin, 746 F.3d 58, 62 (2d 

4 
Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). However, a court may deny even a pro se plaintiff leave to amend 
when amendment would be futile. Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). 
Here, the Court cannot say that, with better pleading, an amended complaint would be 
futile as to any claim dismissed without prejudice. Any such amended complaint will replace the 
existing complaint and must be a wholly integrated and complete pleading that does not rely 
upon or incorporate by reference any pleading or document previously filed with the Court. See 
Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F.3d 1124, 1128 (2d Cir. 1994) (“It is well established that 
an amended complaint ordinarily supersedes the original, and renders it of no legal effect.”) 
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Any exhibits that Plaintiff wishes the Court to 
consider going forward must be attached to the amended complaint. This means that the previous 
complaint and other filings will no longer be the operative documents—everything that is 
essential must be contained in or attached to the amended complaint. 
V. CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, it is hereby 
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Freedman’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is 
ACCEPTED; and it is further 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s FNHRA claim and claim under 42 C.F.R. § 483.24 are 
DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; and it is further 
ORDERED that that Plaintiff’s FCA claim is DISMISSED without prejudice and 
Plaintiff is advised that if he wishes to pursue a claim under the FCA involving fraud on the 
United States, Plaintiff must file a separate action in which he is represented by an attorney; and 
it is further 

5 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and EMTALA claims are DISMISSED 
without prejudice and with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state 
a claim upon which relief may be granted; and it is further 
ORDERED that the following claims may proceed: (1) discrimination and retaliation in 
violation of the ADA; (2) discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 
(3) discrimination and denial of a reasonable accommodation, in violation of the ACA; (4) 
discrimination in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.; (5) discrimination 
based on creed and disability in violation of the New York Executive Law § 296; (6) 
discrimination based on creed and disability, in violation of New York Civil Rights Law § 40-c; 
(7) false imprisonment; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and 
(10) denial of adequate medical care, and it is further 
ORDERED that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date 
of this Order. Any amended complaint must be a complete pleading which will replace the 
current complaint in total; and it is further 
ORDERED that if Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, it shall be referred to 
Magistrate Judge Freedman for review; and it is further 
ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days from the 
date of this Order or to request an extension of time to do so, the complaint will proceed as to the 
above-identified claims; and it is further 
ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue summonses as to Defendants Centers for Care, 
LLC and CLR Troy, LLC, and forward them with copies of the complaint and a packet 
containing General Order 25, which sets forth this district’s Civil Case Management Plan, to the 
United States Marshal for service upon Defendants. Defendants must file a formal response to 

6 
Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
subsequent to service of process; and it is further 
ORDERED that all pleadings, motions, and other documents relating to this action must 
bear the case number assigned to this action and be filed with the Clerk of the United States 
District Court, Northern District of New York, 7th Floor, Federal Building, 100 S. Clinton St., 
Syracuse, New York 13261-7367. Plaintiff must comply with all requests by the Clerk’s Office 
for any documents that are necessary to maintain this action. All parties must comply with rule 
7.1 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Northern District of New York in filing motions. 
Motions will be decided on submitted papers, without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered 
by this Court. Plaintiff is also required to promptly notify the Clerk’s Office and all parties or 
their counsel, in writing, of any change in his address; his failure to do so may result in the 
dismissal of this action; and it is further 
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the 
Local Rules. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 11, 2026 
 Syracuse, New York 

Passage view · GavelSight