CHUKWU v. MURPHY et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 36 Report and Recommendations. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1 ), is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this matter. Signed by Judge Robert Kirsch on 1/27/2025. (mlh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

OBIOMA CHUKWA,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 23-23010 (RK) (JTQ)
V.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
PHIL MURPHY and STATE OF NJ,
Defendants.

KIRSCH, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the December 20, 2024 Report and
Recommendation of the Honorable Justin T. Quinn, U.S.M.J. (ECF No. 36, "R&R".) The R&R
recommends dismissing Plaintiff Obioma Chukwa's ("Plaintiff) pro se Complaint with prejudice
pursuant to the Court's inherent powers and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 41(b). (Id.
at 3, 5.) Under Local Rule 72.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Plaintiff was afforded
fourteen (14) days to file objections. He has not done so. Having reviewed the relevant documents

and submissions, the Court adopts the R&R and DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
The relevant facts and procedural history are captured in Judge Quinn's R&R, and the
Court reiterates here only what is necessary for its adoption. Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint in
the present action on December 11, 2023. (ECF No. 1). In the year since, Plaintiff filed twentytwo hand-written letters with the Court. (ECFNos. 4,6, 7, 8, 10, 11,13,14,15, 16,18,20,21,22,
24,25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35.) However, Plaintiff never served any defendant. On May 21, 2024,
this Court issued a Memorandum Order directing Plaintiff to serve process in accordance with
Rule 4 and file proof of such service by June 30, 2024. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff requested—and

was granted—six extensions to effectuate service or amend his Complaint. (ECF Nos. 17, 19,23,
27, 29, 31.) Judge Quinn granted each request, and set October 30, 2024 as a "final deadline" for
Plaintiff to file and serve his amended pleading. (ECF No. 31.) Accordingly, when Plaintiff
requested a seventh extension (ECF No. 32), Judge Quinn denied it. (ECF No. 33.) On December
20, 2024, Judge issued the now-pending R&R, recommending that the matter be "dismissed with
prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to prosecute the case." (R&R at 1.)
Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2) allows a party to object to a Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service. The District Court may consider the record
developed before the Magistrate Judge and need not conduct independent factfinding. Local Civ.
R. 72.1 (c)(2). When a report and recommendation is uncontested, the District Court is not required
to apply a particular standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (discussing
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)); see also Goney v. dark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984). "At a minimum,
'what is not objected to, the district court reviews under the plain error or manifest injustice
standard.'" Brainbuilders, LLC v. Opium, Inc., No. 18-638, 2019 WL 2315389, at *2 (D.N.J. May
31, 2019) (quoting Edelson V., L.P. v. Encore Networks, Inc., No. 11-5802, 2012 WL 4891695, at
*3 (D.NJ. Oct. 12, 2012)). "A District Court has the authority to dismiss a suit sua sponte for
failure to prosecute by virtue of its inherent powers and pursuant to [Rule] 41(b)." Iseley v. Bitner,

216 F. App'x 252, 254-55 (3d Cir. 2007).
Here, Judge Quinn's R&R was mailed to Plaintiff on December 20, 2024, with instructions
to make any objections by January 3, 2025. (ECF No. 36.) On January 3, Plaintiffs deadline to
object, the mailing was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 37.) The return sticker from UPS
indicates that the reason for the non-delivery was: "receiver did not want, refused delivery." {Id.)
This is the first time any docket entry in this matter had not been able to be delivered, and Plaintiff

had not informed the Court that his address changed. On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter
titled "Amended Complaint" that was not, in fact an amended complaint, but did provide an
updated address for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 38.) The Clerk's office sent a copy of the R&R to
Plaintiffs new address on January 10, 2025, but that mailing was returned as undeliverable on
January 23, 2025. (ECF No. 39.)
This Court's Local Rules require all litigants to "advise the Court of any change in
their. . . address within seven days of being apprised of such change by filing a notice of said
change with the Clerk." Local Civ. R. 10.1 (a) (noting that failure to comply with the Rule "may
result in the imposition of sanctions by the Court"). "It is not this Court's obligation to seek out a
litigant in order to properly provide that party with a copy of a court order. Once the Court has
provid[ed] proof of mailing to the litigant's last known address on record, the Court's obligation
has been satisfied." Francis v. Hypen, 2022 WL 16918186,at *2 (D.V.I. Nov. 14, 2022); see also
Williams v. Overmyer, 2023 WL 4534472 at *1 (W.D. Pa. July 13, 2023) (dismissing action under
Rule 41(b) and noting that "it is a plaintiffs obligation to provide this Court with a current address
and Plaintiff has not provided any new address, [therefore,] this Court must assume that the address
listed on the docket is still valid"). Because the Court twice fulfilled its obligation to send Plaintiff
the R&R, notwithstanding Plaintiffs failure to comply with Rule 10.1 (a) and update the Court
with an address that could appropriately receive mail, the Court determines that the R&R is
unopposed.

Turning to the R&R itself, the Court finds no "error" in Judge Quinn's recommendation or
his thorough analysis of the Poulis factors. See Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d
863, 868 (3d Ctr. 1984) (establishing a six-factor balancing test to assess whether involuntary
dismissal is appropriate). Plaintiff bears full responsibility for his failure to prosecute this case, as

he was given ample opportunity to effectuate service, amend his complaint, and move through
litigation. Although it is not clear—based on his many filings—whether Plaintiffs claim has any
merit at all, Plaintiff has made "adjudication of his case impossible." SeeAbulkhair v. New Century
Fin. Servs., Inc., 467 F. App'x 151, 153 (3d Cir. 2012). Plaintiff has exhausted his extensions and
do-overs. While Judge Quinn is entirely reasonable and has been exceedingly accommodating, the
Court takes note of Plaintiff s p ro se status and will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 36) is adopted. Therefore,
IT IS on this 27th day of January, 2025:
ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 36); and it
is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint, (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum
Order to the address of record for Plaintiff; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this matter.

ROBERT KlRSCH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4