Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 4, 2024

Montgomery v. New York Presbyterian Hospital

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:23-cv-09201
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentMotion to DismissPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Montgomery v. New York Presbyterian Hospital, Judge Engelmayer granted the hospital’s dismissal motion and closed the case.

Who this affects

Crystal Montgomery and New York Presbyterian Hospital; the case was closed after the court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss.

What happened

In Montgomery v. New York Presbyterian Hospital, Crystal Montgomery, representing herself, brought an employment-discrimination lawsuit against New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The hospital asked the court to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended granting that request, and neither party objected.

Judge Engelmayer adopted the recommendation in full, granted the motion to dismiss, directed the clerk to end the pending motions, and closed the case. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review.

The detailed version

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

Case
Montgomery v. New York Presbyterian Hospital · No. 1:23-cv-09201
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Sept. 4, 2024

Background

Crystal Montgomery, representing herself, filed an employment-discrimination action against New York Presbyterian Hospital on October 19, 2023. The opinion does not reproduce the complaint’s factual allegations; instead, it incorporates the factual summary in Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang’s Report and Recommendation.

Motion and Recommendation

New York Presbyterian Hospital moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the rule used to challenge whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The district court referred the motion to Judge Wang, who recommended granting it on August 13, 2024.

Court’s Review and Ruling

No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious error in the record. The court found no facial error and adopted the Report’s recommendation in its entirety.

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It directed the clerk to mail a copy of the decision to Montgomery, terminate all pending motions, and close the case. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to file timely objections waived appellate review. The opinion does not state additional details about the reasons for dismissal beyond its adoption of the Report.

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.