Tyrone McDowell v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs

TES DISTR KD Se FILED Lee UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ss □□ WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ~ JAN 20 2026 errr nr SAS Ay & leet LOEWENGUT wo TYRONE MCDOWELL, ERN DISTRIC Plaintiff, v. 21-CV-338 (JLS) (JJM) DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Tyrone McDowell commenced this action on March 3, 2021 alleging discrimination on the basis of race and color, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) against Defendants Denis McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs; Brian Stiller; Danielle Bergman; and Grace Stringfellow. Dkt. 1.1 The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 17.

Before the Court is Judge McCarthy’s [147] Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) addressing the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Both parties moved for summary judgment on November 13, 2024. See Dkt. 124 (Defendant); ! Plaintiffs claims against Stiller, Bergman, and Stringfellow have been dismissed.

See Dkt. 48. As such, only Defendant McDonough remained. Douglas A. Collins was then substituted for McDonough pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

Dkt. 128 (Plaintiff). Each side opposed the other’s motion, see Dkt. 133; Dkt. 136- 137; and then replied. See Dkt. 138; Dkt. 140.

Judge McCarthy issued the R&R on September 29, 2025. Dkt. 147. He recommends that this Court grant Defendant’s [124] motion and deny Plaintiffs [128] motion. Jd. at 20. Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 152. He argues that “the R&R misinterprets key facts, disregards controlling law, and impermissibly resolves disputed evidence in Defendant’s favor.” Id. at 1. Defendant opposed the objections, Dkt. 154, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 156.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections briefing, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, this Court accepts Judge McCarthy’s recommendation.

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s [124] motion for summary judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs [128] motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2026 Buffalo, New York as () ty J a L. SINATRA, JR. — UMITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE