Case ID: f3d_78/html/0064-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roslyn C. MARINOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 1096, Docket 95-6097.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Argued Feb. 26, 1996.
    Decided March 8, 1996.
    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.
   PER CURIAM:

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 “faded 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.N.Y.1995).