Neill v. NYU Langone Hospitals

25-2978-cv O'Neill v. NYU Langone Hospitals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 12th day of November, two thousand twenty-six. Present: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. * _____________________________________ MAURA O’NEILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 25-2978 NYU LANGONE HOSPITAL - LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN QUEENS HOSPITAL, LENOX HILL HOSPITAL, ** Defendants-Appellees, CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. _____________________________________ * Judge Gerard E. Lynch has recused himself from consideration of this case. Pursuant to Second Circuit Internal Operating Procedure E(b), the matter is being decided by the two remaining members of the panel. ** The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as reflected above. For Plaintiff-Appellant: MAURA O’NEILL, pro se, Alexandria, VA. For Defendant-Appellee Lenox Hill Hospital: ELDAR MAYOUHAS, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York, NY. For Defendant-Appellee NYU Langone Hospital: Charles F. Hickerson IV, Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York, NY. For Defendant-Appellee New York Presbyterian Queens Hospital: STEVEN V. DEBRACCIO, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Albany, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Kovner, J.; Levy, M.J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Maura O’Neill, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action against NYU Langone Hospital Long Island (“NYU Langone”), New York-Presbyterian Queens Hospital (“NYPQ”), Lenox Hill Hospital (“LHH” and collectively with NYU Langone and NYPQ, “Hospital Defendants”), and the City of New York. O’Neill invoked 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (“RICO”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and state law. The Hospital Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the first amended complaint. The district court granted the motion. O’Neill filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and filed a second amended complaint. The district court construed her second amended complaint as a motion to amend and referred the motion to a magistrate judge. The magistrate 2 judge recommended denying leave to amend. O’Neill objected. The district court overruled O’Neill’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety, and denied O’Neill leave to amend and her Rule 60(b) motion. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the case. “We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo.” Sharikov v. Philips Med. Sys. MR, Inc., 103 F.4th 159, 166 (2d Cir. 2024). 1 “A complaint survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss if the facts, taken as true and with all reasonable inferences drawn in the plaintiff’s favor, state a plausible claim to relief.” Id. “[W]e liberally construe pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017). Upon review, we affirm for substantially the reasons given by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned October 27, 2025, decision. We further conclude that the district court did not err in denying further leave to amend. See Terry v. Inc. Vill. of Patchogue, 826 F.3d 631, 633 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Although district judges should, as a general matter, liberally permit pro se litigants to amend their pleadings, leave to amend need not be granted when amendment would be futile.”). * * * We have considered all of O’Neill’s remaining arguments and are not persuaded. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 1 Unless otherwise indicated, when quoting cases, all internal quotation marks, alteration marks, emphases, footnotes, and citations are omitted. 3