Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 10, 2024

Binns-Harty-Bolt v. McDonough

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:21-cv-07276
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentMotion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Binns-Harty-Bolt v. McDonough, Judge Engelmayer adopted a recommendation addressing dismissal of the plaintiff’s hostile-work-environment claim.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Binns-Harty-Bolt v. McDonough · No. 1:21-cv-07276
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.