Rao et al v. The City of New York et al

Filing 61

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court has reviewed the R&R (Doc. No. 45) 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). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to amend (Doc. No. 44) is denied. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 12/20/2016. (Taronji, Robert)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X KISHOR KUMAR RAO and POORNIMA KISHOR, Plaintiffs, - against - ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14-CV-7422 (RRM)(LB) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DETECTIVE KEVIN WARMHOLD, POLICE OFFICER YISEL CABRERA, DETECTIVE MICHAEL RISO, DETECTIVE JOHN GRIDLEY, and POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE #1–10, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------X ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge. On April 5, 2016 – approximately one month prior to the end of discovery – plaintiffs Kishor Kumar Rao (“Rao”) and Poornima Kishor (“Kishor”) moved to amend their complaint for a third time. Plaintiffs sought to add a municipal liability claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Rao’s arrest was made “using [an] identification card[ ] (“I-cards”) in lieu of attempting to obtain [an] arrest warrant[ ],” in violation of his constitutional rights. (Pls.’ 4/5/16 Ltr. (Doc. No. 41) at 1.) On April 11, 2016, the Court referred that motion to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). On April 26, 2016, Judge Bloom issued an R&R recommending that plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint be denied. (R&R (Doc. No. 45) at 1.) Judge Bloom found that the amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim that the City of New York promulgated a custom or policy that violates federal law, as required for municipal liability under § 1983. (R&R at 2–3.) Judge Bloom also found that defendants would be unduly prejudiced by the amendment because discovery was almost closed. (R&R at 3.) Finally, Judge Bloom reminded the parties that, pursuant to Rule 72(b), any objection to the R&R must be filed within fourteen (14) days. More than fourteen (14) days has passed and no party has filed any objection. CONCLUSION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court has reviewed the R&R (Doc. No. 45) 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). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to amend (Doc. No. 44) is denied. SO ORDERED. Roslynn R. Mauskopf ____________________________________ ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF United States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York December 20, 2016 2

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?