Ghosh v. New York City Housing Authority
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-06139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ghosh v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge Torres granted NYCHA’s dismissal motion, ending Ghosh’s federal and state claims on different terms.
Shyamal Ghosh’s federal and state employment-discrimination and retaliation claims against the New York City Housing Authority.
What happened
Shyamal Ghosh, representing himself, sued the New York City Housing Authority over alleged employment discrimination and retaliation. The Authority asked the court to dismiss his operative complaint.
A court-appointed magistrate judge recommended dismissing Ghosh’s federal claims with prejudice and his state claims without prejudice. No one objected to that recommendation, and the court found no clear error in it.
In Ghosh v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge Analisa Torres adopted the recommendation, granted the Authority’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, dismissed the state claims without prejudice, declined to allow another amendment, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Ghosh v. New York City Housing Authority · No. 1:21-cv-06139
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 20, 2023
Background
Shyamal Ghosh, who was representing himself, filed a complaint alleging employment discrimination and retaliation against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). The case was initially filed in New York state court and was later moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Ghosh amended his complaint several times.
NYCHA filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Judge Torres referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses for a report and recommendation.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Moses recommended granting NYCHA’s motion. She recommended dismissing Ghosh’s federal claims with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, or alternatively for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). She recommended dismissing the state claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked authority to decide those claims.
Ghosh was notified that he could object to the recommendation, but he filed no objections within the required period. Judge Torres therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Ruling
Judge Torres adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court granted NYCHA’s motion to dismiss, dismissed Ghosh’s federal claims with prejudice, dismissed his state claims without prejudice, and declined to grant leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the case was resolved on pleading and jurisdictional grounds without deciding the underlying employment-discrimination or retaliation allegations.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.