Brock v. The City of New York

Background

Mandela Brock, representing himself, sued the City of New York, Eric Adams in his personal capacity, and The Avo Shopping Company. Brock alleged that a COVID-19-related order issued by the Commissioner of the City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, requiring vaccination for workers in New York City, violated rights protected by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The City and Adams moved to dismiss Brock’s second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. District Judge Analisa Torres referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for a report and recommendation. Judge Aaron recommended granting the motion and recommended that the court order Brock to explain why the claims against Avo Shopping should not also be dismissed as derivative of his claims against the City.

Brock filed objections to the recommendation. He also accused Judge Aaron of judicial bias, but the opinion states that he provided no support for that accusation.

Court’s Review of the Objections

The court explained that specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation receive fresh review. General or repetitive objections are reviewed only for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. The court found that Brock’s objections were conclusory, general, or repetitions of his earlier arguments and therefore did not require fresh review. The court overruled the objections and reviewed the remainder of Judge Aaron’s recommendation for clear error, finding none.

Rulings

The court adopted Judge Aaron’s conclusions and granted the City and Adams’s motion to dismiss. Brock’s claims against those defendants were dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not decide the claims against Avo Shopping at this stage. Instead, it ordered Brock to show cause by July 24, 2023, why those claims should not be dismissed as derivative of his claims against the City.

The court also denied as moot Brock’s earlier motion for a preliminary injunction and restraining order. The court stated that it did not need to address the defendants’ argument that Brock’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because it was dismissing the claims against the City and Adams.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres overruled Brock’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation, granted the City and Adams’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the claims against those defendants without prejudice, denied the preliminary-injunction and restraining-order motion as moot, and ordered Brock to explain why the claims against Avo Shopping should not be dismissed.