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

AE FILED □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Sy WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | JAN 20 2026 ET Lita yg fre LOEWENGUTM On TYRONE MCDOWELL, STERN DistRICT > Plaintiff, v. 22-CV-873 (JLS) (JJM) DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Tyrone McDowell commenced this action on November 14, 2022 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 Defendant Denis McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs. 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. 28.

Before the Court is Judge McCarthy’s [35] Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) addressing Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant moved to dismiss on Douglas A. Collins has been substituted for McDonough pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

2 The case was previously referred to Magistrate Judge Foschio, but was reassigned to Judge McCarthy in the interest of judicial economy based on commonality with Case Number 21-CV-338. See Dkt. 19; Dkt. 28.

August 21, 2024. Dkt. 18. Plaintiff opposed the motion, Dkt. 30, and Defendant replied. Dkt. 32.3 Judge McCarthy issued the R&R on September 29, 2025. Dkt. 35. He recommends that this Court grant Defendant’s [18] motion to dismiss. Jd. at 13.

Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 40. He argues that “the R&R fundamentally misapprehends the factual record, disregards the binding effect of VISN-2’s 2007 full-time FTE classification of the Controlled Substance Coordinator (CSC’) position, fails to credit corroborating testimony from multiple VA officials, and fragments what was in reality a decade-long continuous pattern of discrimination and retaliation.” Id. at 1. He further argues that the R&R overlooks the impact of Plaintiffs Court-recognized cognitive limitations, his protected OWCP status, and the severe psychological harm documented by his treating psychiatrist ....” Id. Defendant opposed the objections, Dkt. 42, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 45.4 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)(8). 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. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 Plaintiff also filed a sur-reply. Dkt. 34. Judge McCarthy “did not consider the sur- reply” because Plaintiff did not request permission to file it. See Dkt. 35 at 1 n.2.

Out of an abundance of caution, this Court has reviewed the sur-reply. It does not alter he outcome here.

4 Plaintiff also submitted an additional declaration. Dkt. 44. 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 [18] motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2026 Buffalo, New York UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE