Malinconico v. Adirondack Insurance Exchange

Filing 73

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and DISMISSING the Complaint for failure to prosecute. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 3/17/2016. (fwd'd for jgm) (Lee, Tiffeny)

j)/FUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
TERESA MALINCONICO,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
14-CV-3377 (NGG) (PK)

-againstADIRONDACK INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------)(

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Teresa Malinconico filed this action against Defendant Adirondack Insurance
Company on May 29, 2014, alleging that Defendant improperly adjusted and mishandled
Plaintiffs claims for damages caused to her property after Hurricane Sandy, in violation of an
insurance contract between the parties. (See Comp!. '11'11 5-7.)
On February 22, 2016, Magistrate Judges Pollak, Brown, and Reyes issued a Report &
Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the court dismiss Plaintiffs action for failure to
prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See R&R (Dkt. 72)
at 3.) In the R&R, Judges Pollak, Brown, and Reyes described Plaintiffs consistent failure to
respond to multiple court orders in this case. (See id. at 1-2.) Not only has the Complaint yet to
be properly served, but Plaintiffs counsel has also failed to appear for a status conference and
has failed to respond to a September 30, 2015, Order to Show Cause why this action should not
be dismissed. (Id. at 2.)
No party has objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). (See also R&R at 3 ("Any objections to this [R&RJ must be filed with the Clerk of
Court ... within fourteen (14) days ofreceipt of this Report. Failure to file objections within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court's order.").) Therefore, the court

reviews the R&R for clear error. See Gesualdi v. Mack Excavation & Trailer Serv.. Inc.,
No. 09-CV-2502 (KAM) (JO), 2010 WL 985294, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010); La Torres v.
Walker, 216 F. Supp. 2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Finding no clear
error, the court ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R and accordingly DISMISSES the Complaint for
failure to prosecute. See Porter v. Potter, 219 F. App'x 112 (2d Cir. 2007) (summary order).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
Marchq,2016

NICHOLAS G. GARAUfIS
United States District Judge

2