Hunt v. Arthur Kill Correctional Facility

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons set forth herein, defendants motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED and Hunts claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to enter judgment accordingly, and to close this case. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 2/28/2013. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------X
DAWN T. HUNT,
Plaintiff,
- against -

ORDER
11-CV-2432 (RRM) (LB)

ARTHUR KILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
By Motion filed May 31, 2012, defendant Arthur Kill Correctional Facility filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 24.) By Order entered June 22, 2012, this Court
referred that motion to the assigned Magistrate Judge, the Honorable Lois Bloom, for a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). On October 9, 2012, Judge Bloom issued the R&R, recommending
that defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 28.) Judge Bloom reminded the parties
that pursuant to Rule 72(b), any objection to the R&R was due within fourteen days from service of
that report. (R&R at 16.)
On November 13, 2012, after the deadline for responses to the R&R had passed, plaintiff
requested an extension of time to file her objections. (Doc. No. 29). Judge Bloom granted this
request, ordering plaintiff to file any objections to the R&R by December 10, 2012 and stating
clearly that no subsequent requests for extensions of time would be considered. (Doc. No. 30.)
Despite this extension, plaintiff never filed her objections to the R&R. Instead, on January 3, 2013,
plaintiff filed a letter motion seeking another extension of time to file, on the grounds that she was
in the process of retaining an attorney. (Doc. No. 31.) The next day, her attorney filed a notice of
appearance and a motion for extension of time to file a response to the R&R. (Doc. Nos. 32, 33.)
On January 8, 2013, Judge Bloom denied counsel’s request as untimely. (Doc. No. 34.)

Plaintiff has twice failed to file timely objections to the R&R. Defendant has likewise filed
no objections. In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Having found none, the Court adopts the R&R in its
entirety. See Covey v. Simonton, 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED and Hunt’s claims
are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to enter judgment accordingly,
and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.

Roslynn R. Mauskopf

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 28, 2013

____________________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

2