Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 22, 2025

Donahue v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:24-cv-05196
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Motion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Donahue v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Judge Ho adopted a recommendation granting the dismissal motion in part and denying amendment.

Who this affects

Paul Donahue and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; the case’s remaining claims continue in pretrial proceedings.

What happened

In Donahue v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation on Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss Paul Donahue’s complaint.

Neither party objected to the recommendation or asked for more time. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none. The opinion does not describe which claims the recommendation addressed.

Judge Ho adopted the recommendation in full: the motion to dismiss was granted in part, and Donahue was denied permission to amend his complaint. The case remains with Magistrate Judge Cave for general pretrial management of Donahue’s remaining claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Donahue v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-05196
Judge
Ho
Date
Apr. 22, 2025

Background

On February 18, 2025, the court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Cave to prepare a Report and Recommendation on Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss. On March 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Cave recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and that Paul Donahue be denied leave to amend his complaint.

Review of the Recommendation

The parties had fourteen days after service of the Report and Recommendation to file written objections. Neither party objected, and neither requested an extension. The court stated that the parties therefore waived their right to object and to obtain appellate review of the recommendation. Because there was no objection, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues.

Ruling

The court found the Report and Recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law, with no clear error. Judge Dale E. Ho adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was granted in part, and Donahue was denied leave to amend his complaint. The case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Cave for general pretrial management of Donahue’s remaining claims. The opinion does not specify which claims were affected by the partial dismissal.

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.