Hogans v. N.Y.C. Comptroller’s Office
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-10514
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Hogans v. N.Y.C. Comptroller’s Office: Judge Broderick adopted two recommendations and dismissed all claims with prejudice, closing the case.
Keisha D. Hogans’s claims against the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the remaining defendants were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Keisha D. Hogans v. N.Y.C. Comptroller’s Office, et al., pro se plaintiff Keisha D. Hogans sued several city, state, and federal agencies, officials, and District Council 37, AFSCME. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the claims against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Justice because Hogans did not properly serve those agencies or pursue the case against them. The magistrate judge separately recommended granting the other defendants’ dismissal motions and dismissing the complaint. No party objected or requested more time.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick reviewed both recommendations for clear error, found none, and adopted them in full. He dismissed with prejudice the claims against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Justice, dismissed with prejudice the claims against the remaining defendants, directed the Clerk to close the case, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hogans v. N.Y.C. Comptroller’s Office · No. 1:23-cv-10514
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Keisha D. Hogans filed the action without a lawyer on November 29, 2023, against several defendants, including the New York City Comptroller’s Office, the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, Administrative Law Judge Kevin Casey, the New York City Department of Investigation, the New York State Office of the Attorney General, Caroline J. Downey, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and District Council 37, AFSCME.
The court referred pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang. Defendants Downey and the New York State Office of the Attorney General, District Council 37, AFSCME, and the New York City defendants and Casey filed separate motions to dismiss.
Reports and Recommendations
A magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is a proposed decision sent to a district judge for review. In the first report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Wang recommended dismissing Hogans’s claims against the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with prejudice because Hogans failed to comply with the federal service requirements for those agencies and failed to prosecute the case against them. Before issuing that recommendation, Judge Wang ordered Hogans to explain why those claims should not be dismissed. Hogans responded with a letter that did not address the identified service problems.
In the second report and recommendation, Judge Wang recommended granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing Hogans’s complaint with prejudice. Both reports gave the parties fourteen days to file written objections and stated that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. No party filed an objection or asked for more time.
Court’s Ruling
Because no timely objections were filed, Judge Vernon S. Broderick reviewed both reports for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record. He found no clear error and adopted both reports in their entirety.
The court dismissed with prejudice Hogans’s claims against the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It also dismissed with prejudice Hogans’s claims against the remaining defendants. The Clerk of Court was directed to dismiss the action with prejudice and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.