Delo v. Fordham University

Background

Fordham University moved to dismiss Delo’s case. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo, who recommended granting it in a Report and Recommendation filed June 2, 2025. The recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object would waive the right to object. The district court granted Delo two extensions, giving him until August 16, 2025, to file objections.

Delo filed no objections. He did file a motion for reconsideration before the deadline, but that motion addressed alleged conflicts of interest between Fordham and its counsel rather than the Report and Recommendation. Judge Figueredo denied the reconsideration motion. The district court therefore stated that Delo had waived his right to object to the recommendation and to obtain appellate review based on those objections.

Court’s Analysis

Even though no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the case and the recommendation. The court found that Delo lacked standing. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient connection to the dispute to invoke the court’s authority. Because Delo lacked standing, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and had to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(h)(3).

The court also stated that, even if Delo had standing, he failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal means the allegations, even if accepted as pleaded, do not present a legally sufficient claim. The court found the Report and Recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted Fordham University’s motion to dismiss. Delo’s claims under 18 U.S.C. § 600, 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), 52 U.S.C. § 30118, and the New York Constitution were dismissed with prejudice. His Section 1983 and Title VI claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The court allowed Delo until September 26, 2025, to file an amended complaint alleging facts establishing standing and pleading plausible Section 1983 and Title VI claims. The court stated that if he did not do so, the remaining claims would be dismissed with prejudice and the case would be closed.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed with the appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the listed motion and mail the order to Delo.