Binns-Harty-Bolt v. McDonough
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-07276
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Binns-Harty-Bolt v. McDonough, Judge Engelmayer adopted a recommendation addressing dismissal of the plaintiff’s hostile-work-environment claim.
Rinella C. Binns-Harty-Bolt’s hostile-work-environment cause of action and Denis R. McDonough’s motion to dismiss that cause of action.
What happened
Rinella C. Binns-Harty-Bolt sued Denis R. McDonough, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in his official capacity. McDonough asked the court to dismiss the hostile-work-environment claim in Binns-Harty-Bolt’s Third Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim.
Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses recommended granting the motion. Neither side objected, so the district court reviewed the recommendation only for obvious error and found none. The court adopted the recommendation in full.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered the ruling. The opinion’s conclusion contains contradictory wording—“denies grants defendant’s motion”—but the recommendation and the court’s adoption of it indicate that the motion was granted; the opinion also states that this was done without further leave to amend.
The detailed version
- Binns-Harty-Bolt v. McDonough · No. 1:21-cv-07276
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 10, 2024
Background
Rinella C. Binns-Harty-Bolt brought the case against Denis R. McDonough, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The pending motion concerned the hostile-work-environment cause of action in Binns-Harty-Bolt’s Third Amended Complaint. McDonough moved to dismiss that cause of action under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses issued a June 21, 2024 Report and Recommendation recommending that the court grant McDonough’s motion. No party filed objections. Because there were no objections, Judge Engelmayer reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. He found no facial error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Ruling
The conclusion states: “the Court denies grants defendant’s motion to dismiss the TAC’s second cause of action without further leave to amend.” This wording is internally contradictory. The preceding discussion says that the Report recommended granting the motion and that the court adopted that recommendation in full. Accordingly, the opinion appears to grant the motion to dismiss the second cause of action without further leave to amend, but the conclusion’s exact wording creates uncertainty about the disposition. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 90. The opinion also states that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.