Steele v. City Of New York et al

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, the court finds no clear error in the Report and Recommendation and hereby affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the court. Acco rdingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Bloom's Report and Recommendation, the court (1) grants summary judgment in favor of defendants Detective Evan Smelley and Assistant District Attorney Rupert V. Barry on plaintiff's Sec tion 1983 claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution, and (2) declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to the extent any such claims are alleged in the Compla int. Any such state law claims are thus dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment in favor of defendants in accordance with this decision and to close this case. Defendants shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on the pro se plaintiff by March 27, 2012 and file a certificate of service via ECF by March 28, 2012. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/26/2012. (Ravi, Sagar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------X
ANTHONY STEELE,
Pro se Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

- against DET. EVAN SMELLEY and A.D.A. RUPERT V.
BARRY,

10-CV-01990 (KAM)(LB)

Defendants.
--------------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
On April 16, 2010, Anthony Steele (“plaintiff”)
commenced this pro se action against the City of New York,
Detective Evan Smelley (“Detective Smelley”), and Assistant
District Attorney Rupert V. Barry (“ADA Barry”) asserting claims
for false arrest and malicious prosecution pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (“Section 1983”).

(See ECF No. 1, Complaint.)

On May 10,

2010, the court dismissed the Complaint as to defendant City of
New York for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1).

(See ECF No. 4, Memorandum and Order.)

On April 14, 2011, the remaining defendants, Detective
Smelley and ADA Barry (collectively, “defendants”), moved for
summary judgment on all claims against them pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Judgment.)

(See ECF No. 33, Motion for Summary

Presently before the court is a Report and

Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on February
23, 2012, recommending that this court grant defendants’ motion

1

for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims and
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
state law claims to the extent any such claims are alleged in the
Complaint.

(ECF No. 42, Report and Recommendation.)
On February 23, 2012, a copy of the Report and

Recommendation was sent to the pro se plaintiff along with copies
of all unreported cases cited therein.
February 23, 2012.)

(See Docket Entry dated

Notice of the Report and Recommendation was

also given to the defendants on February 23, 2012 via the court’s
electronic filing system.

As explicitly noted at the end of the

Report and Recommendation and on the docket entry for the Report
and Recommendation, any written objections to the Report and
Recommendation were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of
service of the Report and Recommendation, or by March 12, 2012.
(Report and Recommendation at 15; Docket Entry dated February 23,
2012); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The

Report and Recommendation also provided clear notice that the
failure to file a timely objection “generally waives any further
judicial review.”

(Report and Recommendation at 15.)

The

statutory period for filing objections has expired, and no
objections to Magistrate Judge Bloom’s Report and Recommendation
have been filed.
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

2

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

28

Where no objection to the Report and

Recommendation has been filed, the district court “need only
satisfy itself that that there is no clear error on the face of
the record.”

Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10

(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189
(S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
Upon a review of the Report and Recommendation, and
considering that the parties have failed to object to any of
Magistrate Judge Bloom’s thorough and well-reasoned
recommendations, the court finds no clear error in the Report and
Recommendation and hereby affirms and adopts the Report and
Recommendation as the opinion of the court.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate
Judge Bloom’s Report and Recommendation, the court (1) grants
defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Section
1983 claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution, and (2)
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to the extent
any such claims are alleged in the Complaint.
claims are thus dismissed without prejudice.

Any such state law
The Clerk of the

Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment in favor of
defendants in accordance with this decision and to close this
case.

3

Defendants shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and
Order on the pro se plaintiff by March 27, 2012 and file a
certificate of service via ECF by March 28, 2012.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 26, 2012
Brooklyn, New York
__________/s/_____
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge

4