Nwosu v. St. Joseph's College

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be t aken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to transmit a copy of this Order and the accompanying Judgment to plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 2/6/2014. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
HELEN NWOSU,
Plaintiff,
- against -

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
12-CV-5821 (RRM) (LB)

ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
On November 21, 2012, pro se plaintiff Helen Nwosu filed this employment
discrimination action. On June 25, 2013, based on plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply with
discovery orders, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(“Rule”) 37(b)(2)(A)(v). Magistrate Judge Bloom reminded the parties that, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(2), any objections were due fourteen days from service of the
R&R. A copy of the R&R was sent to plaintiff, along with copies of all unreported cases cited
therein. To date, no objections have been filed.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear
error and, finding none, concurs with the R&R in its entirety. See Covey v. Simonton, 481 F.
Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). As the R&R and the record in this case clearly show,
plaintiff was given ample opportunity to comply with her obligations in prosecuting this action,
and ample warning on more than one occasion that her failure to comply with those obligations
would be grounds for dismissal. Magistrate Judge Bloom gave considerable deference to
plaintiff’s pro se status, extending deadlines, and employing considerable time and effort to
ensure that plaintiff understood her obligations and the consequences of any failure to comply.

Judge Bloom’s well-reasoned R&R properly balances the competing concerns at issue here, and
recounts sufficient factual and legal grounds to warrant the most severe sanction of dismissal.
Moreover, plaintiff has advanced no objection to the R&R.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to
transmit a copy of this Order and the accompanying Judgment to plaintiff via U.S. Mail.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 6, 2014

Roslynn R. Mauskopf
____________________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge