Sheon Arnold v. Louis DeJoy, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 9/26/2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : SHEON ARNOLD, : : Plaintiff, : 1:24-cv-4814-GHW-SN : -v- : ORDER : LOUIS DEJOY, et al., : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: On August 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 (the “R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion. Dkt. No. 55 (R&R). Judge Netburn concluded that: (1) summary judgment is appropriate on all but three of Plaintiff’s Title VII employment discrimination claims because Plaintiff only applied for 61 of the 98 listed positions and because for 58 of the 61 job postings which Plaintiff did actually apply to, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies within the requisite time period; (2) Plaintiff’s discrimination claims under Title VII should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because he failed to allege any direct evidence of discrimination; (3) Plaintiff’s claims under the New York state laws, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and § 1983 should be dismissed because those laws are not applicable to federal employers; and (4) Plaintiff’s remaining claims should be dismissed because the cited statutes do not have a private right of action. See generally id. On August 21, 2025, the Court issued an order adopting the R&R and granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for partial summary judgment. Dkt. No. 56 (“August 21 Order”).

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the R&R no later than 30 days from the date of the August 21 Order. Id. On August 28, 2025, the Court reminded Plaintiff that “he has until September 22, 2025 to file an amended complaint as to those three job postings for which he did previously seek administrative resolution.” Dkt. No. 60.

As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs claims under § 1981, § 1983, and under New York state law are dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiffs claims under the Veterans’ Preference Act, the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act, the Jobs for Veterans Act, the Civil Service Reform Act, and Executive Order 11521 are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs unexhausted Title VII claims (as to the 58 job postings) are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's Title VI claims (as to the remaining three job postings are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff.

The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and to close this case.

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2025 New York, New York GREGORY H. WOODS United States District Judge