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

ATES DIST KY FED Rich UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S Px WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | FEB 06 2026 □ ty, + West LOFWENGUTY SAS TYRONE MCDOWELL, SN DISTRICT Plaintiff, v. 22-CV-843 (JLS) (JJM) DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Tyrone McDowell commenced this action on November 4, 2022 alleging retaliation and harassment on the basis of race, color, and disability 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. 28.2 Before the Court is Judge McCarthy's [35] Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) addressing Defendant’s [18] motion to dismiss. Defendant moved to 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. dismiss on August 23, 2024. Dkt. 18. Plaintiff opposed the motion, Dkt. 31, 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. See id. at 1.

Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 42. He argues that the “R&R misapplies the controlling standards under Rule 56, Title VII, and the Rehabilitation Act” in various ways, and that these “errors collectively render the R&R legally unsound and factually incomplete.” See id. at 1-2. Defendant opposed the objections, Dkt.

43, 45,4 and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 47.

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. § 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).

3 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 1n.2.

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

The submission at Dkt. 45 appears to duplicate the submission at Dkt. 43, but attaches a certificate of service.

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections briefing, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, this Court accepts and adopts 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: February 6, 2026 Buffalo, New York HN L/ SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT GE