Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Sept. 8, 2022

Bryan v. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:18-cv-01300-AT-SLC
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Summary JudgmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bryan v. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the court granted summary judgment to defendants and closed the case.

Who this affects

Edmund Hector Bryan, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Manager- Hector Ohey — Central Processing Department.

What happened

In Bryan v. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Edmund Hector Bryan sued Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and a named manager. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims or the parties’ arguments.

The court had received a report and recommendation from Sarah L. Cave. Because no one objected, the court reviewed that recommendation for clear error and found none.

The court adopted the recommendation in full, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and closed the case. The deciding judge is not identified in the judgment; the document was signed by the clerk of court.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bryan v. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · No. 1:18-cv-01300-AT-SLC
Judge
Sarah L. Cave
Date
Sept. 8, 2022

Background

Edmund Hector Bryan brought this case against Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and “Manager- Hector Ohey — Central Processing Department.” The judgment does not state the claims, the underlying facts, or the parties’ arguments.

Report and Recommendation

The court had before it a report and recommendation prepared by the Honorable Sarah L. Cave. The judgment states that no objections were received. The court therefore reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none.

Ruling

The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed. The judgment does not provide the reasons supporting summary judgment beyond referring to the court’s September 7, 2022 order. It does not identify the district judge who issued that order; the judgment was signed by Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court, by a deputy clerk.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.