Sawyers v. McMahon
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-05494
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sawyers v. McMahon, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the complaint but allowed amendment except for Section 1988, criminal-law, and harassment claims.
The plaintiffs, including Wilfredo Sawyers, may amend the dismissed complaint except as to claims based on Section 1988, criminal law, or harassment; the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted through the adopted recommendation.
What happened
In Sawyers v. McMahon, defendants Christine McMahon and Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc. asked the court to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The opinion does not repeat the underlying facts, instead incorporating a magistrate judge’s report.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended granting the motion in full while allowing the plaintiffs to amend most claims. No party objected to the report, so the court reviewed it for clear error. The opinion states that the plaintiffs’ failure to object waived appellate review.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the report in full, dismissed the complaint, and allowed the plaintiffs to amend except as to claims based on Section 1988, criminal law, or harassment. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Sawyers v. McMahon · No. 1:23-cv-05494
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 16, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs sued Christine McMahon and Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The opinion incorporates the factual summary in Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s Report and Recommendation rather than restating those facts.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Aaron recommended granting the defendants’ motion in its entirety while granting the plaintiffs leave to amend, except for claims based on Section 1988, criminal law, or harassment. “Leave to amend” means permission to file an amended complaint. The opinion states that no party submitted objections to the report.
Court’s Analysis
Because there were no objections, Judge Engelmayer reviewed the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no facial error in the report’s conclusions and adopted it in its entirety. The court also stated that the plaintiffs’ failure to object within the required period waived appellate review, as the report had warned.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend except as to claims based on Section 1988, criminal law, or harassment. The clerk of court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.