Gray v. United States
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-02621
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gray v. United States, Judge Broderick adopted a recommendation to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and ordered the case closed.
Dunstan Gray and the United States; the court dismissed the action and closed the case.
What happened
In Gray v. United States, Dunstan Gray sued the United States after initially filing the case against the Internal Revenue Service. Gray represented himself, and the United States moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses recommended dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Neither side objected or asked for more time to object. The opinion does not explain the recommendation’s underlying jurisdictional reasoning.
Judge Broderick reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it in full, directed the Clerk to dismiss the action, and ordered the case closed.
The detailed version
- Gray v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-02621
- Vernon Broderick
- July 16, 2025
Background
Dunstan Gray filed the case on April 4, 2024, initially naming the Internal Revenue Service as the defendant. He later filed an amended complaint and an amendment to that complaint. The caption in the opinion names the United States of America as the defendant. Gray proceeded without a lawyer.
The United States filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on October 30, 2024. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case. Gray filed an objection to the motion, and the United States filed a reply.
Report and Recommendation
The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses. On May 28, 2025, Judge Moses issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The parties were given 14 days to file written objections, but neither party objected or requested additional time.
Ruling
Because no timely objection was filed, Judge Broderick reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record. He found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court directed the Clerk of Court to dismiss the action and close the case. The opinion does not provide the Report and Recommendation’s detailed explanation for why subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking, and it does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.