Vassall v. The City of New York (N.Y.P.D.) et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court has reviewed Judge Pollak's unopposed R&R and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This action is dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 4/13/2017. (Haji, Sara)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
15-CV-3612 (MKB) (CLP)
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER
STEVIE WILLIAMSON, Shield No. 144021,
POLICE OFFICER SEAN RAFFERTY, Shield No.
17816, POLICE OFFICER TIMOTHY MERRICK,
Shield No. 15349, POLICE OFFICER CLAUDY
MILFORD, Shield No. 25188 and SERGEANT
EDWIN FERREIRA, Shield No. 29638,
--------------------------------------------------------------MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Traceyann Vassall commenced the above-captioned action on June 19, 2015
against Defendants the City of New York, Police Officers Stevie Williamson, Sean Rafferty,
Timothy Merrick, Claudy Milford and Sergeant Edwin Ferreira, alleging that on March 23, 2014,
Defendants falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted her in violation of her constitutional
rights. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) On February 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint. (Am. Compl., Docket Entry No. 20.) On October 6, 2016, Defendants moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Defs. Letter Encl. Mot. to Dismiss (“Defs. Letter”), Docket
Entry No. 41.) Plaintiff requested and was granted an extension of time to respond to the
motion, and has since not responded or contacted the Court. (See Pl. Ext. Letter, Docket Entry
No. 42; Order dated Dec. 21, 2016, Docket Entry No. 44.) By Report and Recommendation
dated February 27, 2017 (the “R&R”), Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak recommended that the
Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute. (R&R 4, Docket Entry No. 46.) For the
reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R and dismisses Plaintiff’s claims for failure to
On July 6, 2015, attorneys Alexander T. Coleman and Michael J. Borrelli filed notices of
appearance as counsel for Plaintiff on behalf of the law firm Borrelli & Associates, PLLC.
(Notices of Appearance, Docket Entry Nos. 5, 6.) On May 13, 2016, Borrelli & Associates
moved to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff, citing irreconcilable conflicts. (Mot. to Withdraw,
Docket Entry No. 24.) Judge Pollak ordered Plaintiff, her counsel and Defendants’ counsel to
attend a conference on the motion, and all parties but Plaintiff attended. (See Scheduling Order,
Docket Entry No. 25; Minute Entry dated May 27, 2016, Docket Entry No. 29.) On May 27,
2016, Judge Pollak granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered Plaintiff to advise the
Court of whether she intended to continue pursuing her claims pro se or would seek counsel.
(Order, Docket Entry No. 30.) On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff stated that she would proceed pro se.
(Pl. Letter dated July 1, 2016, Docket Entry No. 32.)
On September 13, 2016, Judge Pollak held a telephone conference to discuss Defendants’
anticipated motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Minute Entry dated Sept. 14, 2016,
Docket Entry No. 39.) The parties agreed to a briefing schedule. (Id.) On October 6, 2016,
Defendants timely served their motion papers on Plaintiff. (See Defs. Letter.) On November 3,
2016, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file her responsive papers because of a medical
condition. (Pl. Ext. Letter.) Judge Pollak granted Plaintiff’s application on November 8, 2016,
extending her time to respond until December 5, 2016, and permitting her to respond by e-mail.
(Order dated Nov. 8, 2016 (“November 8 Order”), Docket Entry No. 43.) A copy of Judge
Pollak’s November 8 Order was mailed to Plaintiff on November 8, 2016, at the address she
provided to the Court and to which Judge Pollak had sent prior orders.
The November 8 Order was returned and stamped “Return to Sender.” (See Order dated
Dec. 21, 2016 (“December 21 Order”), Docket Entry No. 44.) On December 21, 2016, Judge
Pollak issued an order advising Plaintiff that “if she continue[d] to refuse to accept
correspondence from the Court or if she ha[d] changed addresses without notifying the Court,”
her claims would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 1.) Judge Pollak further directed
Plaintiff to contact the Court by January 30, 2017 and to respond to Defendants’ motion to
dismiss. (Id.) Judge Pollak’s December 21 Order was mailed and not returned to the Court.
Plaintiff never responded to the December 21 Order and never served or filed a response to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
On February 27, 2017 Judge Pollak issued the R&R recommending that the Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute unless Plaintiff responded to Defendants’
motion to dismiss and contacted the Court by March 13, 2017 to indicate that she wished to
continue prosecuting the case. (R&R 4.) On April 5, 2017, Defendants filed a letter in support
of dismissal. (Letter Mot. to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 47.) Both the R&R and Defendants’
letter in support of dismissal were mailed to Plaintiff. (See Docket Entry No. 48.) Plaintiff has
not opposed the R&R.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s recommended ruling “may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate judge’s report may operate
as a waiver of any further judicial review of the decision, as long as the parties receive clear
notice of the consequences of their failure to object.” Eustache v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
621 F. App’x 86, 87 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38
(2d Cir. 1997)); see also Almonte v. Suffolk Cty., 531 F. App’x 107, 109 (2d Cir. 2013) (“As a
rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge’s report
waives further judicial review of the point.” (quoting Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir.
2003))); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile,
P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[A] party waives appellate review of a decision in a
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation if the party fails to file timely objections
designating the particular issue.” (first citing Cephas, 328 F.3d at 107; and then citing Mario v.
P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002))).
The Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts
the R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This action is dismissed for failure to
prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge
Dated: April 13, 2017
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?