Selvon v. The City of New York et al

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts MJ Levy's Report and Recommendation 59 recommending that this Court deny defendants motion 32 to dismiss this action for lack of prosecution. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 8/26/2016. (Innelli, Michael)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------x ARNALDO SALVON, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Appearances: For the Plaintiff: ELLIE AMANDA SILVERMAN, ESQ. Novo Law Firm, PC 299 Broadway 17th Floor New York, NY 10007 23 BLOCK, Senior District Judge: Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case No. 13-CV-6626 (FB) (RML) -againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. --------------------------------------------------x For the Defendants: JORGE MARQUEZ, ESQ. New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 24 Pending before this Court is Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy’s Report & 25 Recommendation (“R&R”), dated August 9, 2016, recommending that this Court deny 26 Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action for lack of prosecution. For the following 27 reasons, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Levy’s R&R in its entirety. 28 I 29 On January 26, 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss this action for lack of 30 prosecution. ECF No. 32. Defendants’ allegations focus on a series of delays caused by 31 plaintiff’s counsel when he failed to appear at a conference, as well as failed to serve 1 several defendants in a timely manner. 2 On April 15, 2016, the undersigned referred plaintiff’s motion to Judge Levy for 3 an R&R on whether Defendants’ motion should be granted. Judge Levy issued his R&R 4 by electronic order. The R&R reviewed the parties’ participation in the litigation and 5 evaluated the number of times that plaintiff and defendants appeared before this Court 6 and the magistrate judge. Magistrate Judge Levy determined that although “plaintiff’s 7 counsel could have been more proactive in litigating this case,” counsel did not engage 8 in sanctionable conduct, and defendant has not demonstrated prejudice. 9 In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 10 or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 11 § 636(b)(1)(C). If no timely objections have been made, the court “need only satisfy 12 itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Urena v. New York, 160 13 F.Supp.2d 606, 609-10 (SDNY 2001) (internal marks and citation omitted). 14 Objections were due within fourteen days from the issuance of Magistrate Judge 15 Levy’s R&R. The time for filing objections has expired, and no party has objected. 16 Accordingly, all objections are hereby deemed to have been waived. 17 Upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Levy’s 18 R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free of clear error, and it ADOPTS the 19 R&R in its entirety. 2 II. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. SO ORDERED. /S/ Frederic Block_____________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York August 25, 2016 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?