Smith v. Police Officer John Doe et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.) For the reasons stated above. Judge Reyes' R&R dated October 31,2016,recommending that the City's motion to dismiss be granted in its entirety and that the Complaintbe dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), isadopted in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.SO Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 12/1/2016. (C/M) (Ramesar, Thameera)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MARK A. SMITH,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE and
THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
TOWNES,United States District Judge:
On January 26,2015, Plaintiff Mark Smith ("Plaintiff) filed a pro se Complaint against
Defendants Officer John Doe and the City of New York (the "City") concerning his arrest on
September 14, 2010, alleging violations offederal and state laws for excessive force, false arrest,
deprivation of property, and malicious prosecution. (ECF No. 1.) The City subsequently moved
to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that
Plaintiffs claims are time-barred. Plaintiffs claim against the City fails as a matter oflaw, and
Plaintiff waived his claims pursuant to a settlement agreement. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff has not
yet responded to the City's motion. On July 27, 2016, this Court referred the City's motion to
United States Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.("Judge Reyes")for a report and
On October 31, 2016, Judge Reyes filed and served via ECF an R&R recommending that
the City's motion be granted and that the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. (ECF No. 20.)
On November 1, 2016, the R&R was mailed to Plaintiff. Written objections to the R&R were
due within 14 days of service. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To date, no objections have been filed
and no party has requested an extension of time in which to do so.
A district court is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions ofthe magistrate
judge as to those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed.
See Thomas v. Arn,474 U.S. 140,150(1985). Even when no objections are filed, however,
many courts seek to satisfy themselves "that there is no clear error on the face of the record."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note (1983 Addition);see also Edwards v. Town of
Huntington, No.05 Civ. 339(NGG)
(AKT),2007 WL 2027913, at *2(E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2007).
Although not required to do so, this Court has reviewed Judge Reyes' R&R for clear error on the
face of the record. The Court finds no clear error and, therefore, adopts the R&R in its entirety
as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
For the reasons stated above. Judge Reyes' R&R dated October 31,2016,
recommending that the City's motion to dismiss be granted in its entirety and that the Complaint
be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), is
adopted in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
S/ Sandal L. Townes
SANDRA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
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?