McDowell v. McDonough et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:21-cv-00338-JLS-JJM
Document 158
Filed 01/20/26
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TYRONE MCDOWELL,
Plaintiff,
V. DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Defendant.
ED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
UNI
JAN 2 0 2026
MARY C. LOEWENGUTH, CLERK WESTERN DISTRICT OF NY
21-CV-338 (JLS) (JJM)
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") against Defendants Denis McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs; Brian Stiller; Danielle Bergman; and Grace Stringfellow. Dkt. 1.1 The case has been referred 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.
Before the Court is Judge McCarthy's [147] Report and Recommendation ("R&R") addressing the parties' motions for summary judgment. Both parties moved for summary judgment on November 13, 2024. See Dkt. 124 (Defendant);
1 Plaintiff's claims against Stiller, Bergman, and Stringfellow have been dismissed. See Dkt. 48. As such, only Defendant McDonough remained. Douglas A. Collins was then substituted for McDonough pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPC

Case 1:21-cv-00338-JLS-JJM Document 158
Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 3
Dkt. 128 (Plaintiff). Each side opposed the other's motion, see Dkt. 133; Dkt. 136- 137; and then replied. See Dkt. 138; Dkt. 140.
Judge McCarthy issued the R&R on September 29, 2025. Dkt. 147. He recommends that this Court grant Defendant's [124] motion and deny Plaintiff's [128] motion. Id. at 20. Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 152. He argues that "the R&R misinterprets key facts, disregards controlling law, and impermissibly resolves disputed evidence in Defendant's favor." Id. at 1. Defendant opposed the objections, Dkt. 154, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 156.
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, the objections briefing, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, this Court accepts Judge McCarthy's recommendation.
2

Case 1:21-cv-00338-JLS-JJM Document158 _ Filed 01/20/26 Page 3of3

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s [124] motion for summary judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs [128]

motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2026
Buffalo, New York

re a
Orca

JOHNML. SINATRA, JR.
UMTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE