KARIM v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (2021)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Syed Mohammad Aftab Karim (“Karim”), a neurosurgeon who describes himself as a Muslim of Indian appearance and ethnicity, appeals the District Court's order of March 6, 2019 (“March 6 Order”), which dismissed Karim's Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants-Appellees New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (“NYCHHC”), Lincoln Hospital and Medical Health Center (the “Hospital”), Melissa P. Schori, Jay Yelon, Ross Wilson, and Mark Hartman (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Karim failed to state a due process or equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) or an employment discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, Administrative Code § 8-101 et seq. (“NYCHRL”). Karim also appeals the District Court's order of June 4, 2020 (“June 4 Order”), which adopted in its entirety the magistrate judge's March 25, 2019 Report and Recommendation (“Magistrate Judge's Report”) advising the District Court to deny as futile Karim's request for leave to file his proposed Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

In the March 6 Order, the District Court held that Karim's due process claim failed because Karim did not adequately allege that the Hospital's refusal to grant him clinical privileges interfered with a constitutionally cognizable property right or liberty interest, and that his equal protection and state-law discrimination claims failed because Karim alleged no facts suggesting that his ancestry, ethnicity, national origin, or religion motivated the denial of privileges. In the June 4 Order, the District Court determined that neither the TAC nor supplementary pleadings Karim proposed in his Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report would cure the deficiencies in the SAC, and therefore denied as futile Karim's request for leave to replead.

“We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)․” Miller v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 979 F.3d 118, 121 (2d Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted). We also review de novo a denial of leave to amend based on futility. Hutchison v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., 647 F.3d 479, 490 (2d Cir. 2011).

We agree with the District Court that the SAC fails to state any claims for relief against any of the Defendants. We also agree that granting leave to replead would be futile. Karim's arguments to the contrary on appeal are without merit. Therefore, substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in the March 6 Order and the June 4 Order, we AFFIRM in their entirety the orders of the District Court.