Akman v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of Delaware Inc.

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court has reviewed the unopposed Report & Recommendation, and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Mann's R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 8/29/2012. (Lee, Margaret)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------x
MOHAMMAD AKMAN,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
11-CV-3252 (MKB) (RLM)

v.
PEP BOYS MANNY MOE & JACK OF
DELAWARE, INC., d/b/a PEP BOYS AUTO,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------x
MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Mohammad Akman filed the above-captioned action on July 5, 2011, alleging
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights
Law. On June 18, 2012, Defendant Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of Delaware Inc. filed a
motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to prosecute. (Docket No. 19.) Specifically,
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint due to Plaintiff’s discovery deficiencies and
multiple violations of Court orders. Id. On June 19, 2012, Magistrate Judge Mann issued an
Order to Show Cause, directing Plaintiff to show cause, in person, on June 22, 2012, why the
complaint should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and for repeated violations of discovery orders pursuant to Rule
37(b)(2)(A)(v) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why additional monetary sanctions
should not be imposed pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Court’s inherent authority. Plaintiff’s counsel appeared on June 22, 2012, and Magistrate
Judge Mann noted that Plaintiff’s counsel “makes excuses for again violating a court order (the
6/14/12 Minute Entry) but has no explanation for having failed to apply to the Court for

additional time.” (Docket No. 21, Jun. 22, 2012 Minute Entry.) Defendant renewed its motion
to dismiss the case, and Magistrate Judge Mann took the matter under advisement. On August
10, 2012, Magistrate Judge Mann filed a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending
that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied. No objections were filed.
This Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R, and, finding no clear error, the Court
adopts Magistrate Judge Mann’s R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly,
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.

SO ORDERED:

s/MKB
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge
Dated: August 29, 2012
Brooklyn, New York