McDowell v. McDonough et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:21-cv-00338-JLS-JJM Document 48 Filed 12/12/22 Page1of3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

TYRONE MCDOWELL,
Plaintiff,
v. 21-CV-338 (JLS) (JJM)
DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary
Department of Veterans Affairs,
BRIAN STILLER, DANIELLE
BERGMAN, GRACE
STRINGFELLOW,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Tyrone McDowell commenced this action on March 3, 2021 alleging
discrimination on the basis of race and color, harassment, and retaliation in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Dkt. 1. On
December 22, 2021, Defendants Bergman, Stiller, and Stringfellow moved to
dismiss the Complaint. Dkt. 14. Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion. Dkt. 24.
Bergman, Stiller, and Stringfellow replied in further support of their motion. Dkt.
26. This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J.
McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 17.

On August 1, 2022, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant the motion dismiss filed by
Defendants Bergman, Stiller, and Stringfellow (Dkt. 14). Dkt. 37. On October 19,

2022, Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 45. Bergman, Stiller, and Stringfellow

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT.
INFORMATION

GPO.

Case 1:21-cv-00338-JLS-JJM Document 48 Filed 12/12/22 Page 2of3

responded to Plaintiff's objections on November 3, 2022. Dkt. 47. Plaintiff did not
reply.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations
of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district
court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P, 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72
requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to
which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, objections, response, and the parties’
submissions. Based on its de novo review, this Court accepts and adopts Judge

McCarthy’s recommendation.

Case 1:21-cv-00338-JLS-JJM Document 48 Filed 12/12/22 Page 3of3

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court GRANTS these
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 14). All claims against Defendants Bergman,
Stiller, and Stringfellow are dismissed. The Clerk of Court shall terminate
Defendants Bergman, Stiller, and Stringfellow from the case. The case remains
with Judge McCarthy for further proceedings consistent with the December 22,

2021 referral order (Dkt. 17).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2022
Buffalo, New York

po ch

\ re —_
JOHN L. SINATRA, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE