Marinoff v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 1096
| Decision Date | 08 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 1096,D,1096 |
| Citation | 78 F.3d 64 |
| Parties | Roslyn C. MARINOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 95-6097. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kimba Wood, Judge ) dismissing appellant's complaint filed pursuant to the Fair Housing Amendments Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. Appellant claims that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") failed to investigate her administrative complaint alleging racial discrimination in a federally assisted urban renewal housing project. We affirm and adopt the opinion of the district court and the magistrate judge concluding that the FHA provides no basis for a private right of action against HUD and that HUD's dismissal of the complaint is not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Roslyn C. Marinoff, New York City, pro se.
Lorraine S. Novinski, Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, New York City (Mary Jo White, United States Attorney; Steven M. Haber, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: VAN GRAAFEILAND, MESKILL, and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
Roslyn Marinoff, pro se, filed an administrative complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") in December 1991 pursuant to the Fair Housing Amendments Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., alleging racial discrimination and retaliation at the housing project in which she lives. HUD closed her complaint in March 1992, because Marinoff had "failed to identify a discriminatory act which has occurred within one year of the filing date."
In December 1993, Marinoff filed the complaint underlying the instant appeal, claiming that HUD had failed to properly investigate her allegations. On September 19, 1994, Magistrate Judge Roberts recommended dismissal of Marinoff's claim because it failed to state a cause of action under the FHA and because HUD's dismissal was nonreviewable administrative action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704. Judge Wood adopted Magistrate Judge Roberts's Report and Recommendation in its entirety, as do we, and we affirm for the reasons stated in the published Opinion and Order that includes the magistrate's report. See Marinoff v. HUD, 892 F.Supp. 493 (S.D...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mhany Mgmt. Inc. v. Cnty. of Nassau
...197, 202–03 (D.D.C.1997) (same); Marinoff v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev., 892 F.Supp. 493, 496 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (same), affd,78 F.3d 64 (2d Cir.1996); Pleune v. Pierce, 697 F.Supp. 113, 119 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (same). However, in the instant case, the Plaintiffs seek relief against the Coun......
-
Mackenzie v. Castro
...42 U.S.C. § 3610(g), I find that plaintiff has a reasonable alternative and therefore review under APA is not available."), aff'd, 78 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 1996); see also, e.g., Marlow v. U.S. Dep't of Educ, 820 F.2d 581, 583 n.3 (2d Cir. 1987) ("We also note that the APA further restricts judi......
-
Morales v. Related Mgmt. Co.
...of action pursuant to the FHA." Marinoff v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 892 F. Supp. 493, 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), aff'd 78 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (adopting the reasoning of the district court's opinion and the magistrate judge's report and recommendation "in its entirety"). ......
-
United States v. E. River Hous. Corp.
...(citing § 3613(a)(1)(B)(2) ); Marinoff v. United States Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev., 892 F.Supp. 493, 496 (S.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, 78 F.3d 64 (2d Cir.1996) (noting that a plaintiff may file suit in district court under § 3613 “[r]egardless of whether or not HUD determines that reasonable ca......
-
Disparate Limbo: How Administrative Law Erased Antidiscrimination.
...the plaintiff's APA claim because the "plaintiff has a reasonable alternative and therefore review under APA is not available"), aff'd, 78 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 1996). That said, in the housing context, some courts have been more friendly to civil rights, and have distinguished the setting from ......