Warren v. City of New York et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court finds no error in Judge Pollack's well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. Indeed, it is entirely appropriate that Wilt advise her client of the instant motion, which proposes to provide a por tion of the attorney's fees obtained in this matter to Plaintiff's former, now-suspended attorney. The Court hereby affirms and adopts, in its entirety, Judge Pollack's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel's request is denied without prejudice. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 4/3/2017. (Lee, Helen)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------- X
CHARLES WARREN,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
15-CV-4063(PKC)(CLP)

CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------- X
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Court Judge:
Plaintiff Charles Warren commenced this action against Defendant the City of New
York, the New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”), Correction Officer FNU Harden,
and Correction Officer FNU Tyler, seeking damages for injuries allegedly suffered on October
31, 2012. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the First,
Fourth, Sixth, Eigth, and Fourteenth Amendments, when the Correction Officers opened
plaintiff’s cell door and, subsequently, members of the Bloods gang assaulted Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s current counsel, Devon Marie Wilt, has filed a motion seeking authorization to
pay Plaintiff’s previous counsel, David Segal, an amount in quantum meruit for work he had
performed related to this matter, prior to his suspension. Before the Court is the Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak, dated February 17, 2017,
recommending that Wilt’s motion be denied without prejudice because papers submitted by Wilt
do not indicate whether her client has been provided with notice of the instant motion for
attorney fees.
A district court reviews those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party
has timely objected under a de novo standard of review and “may accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However,
where no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, the district court “need
only satisfy itself that that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Urena v. New York,
160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609–10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186,
1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
Here, the Report and Recommendation properly informed Plaintiff’s counsel that any
objections had to be filed within 14 days of receipt of the report. See R&R at 4 (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir.
2008). The statutory period for filing objections has expired, and to date, no objections have
been filed. (See generally Docket No. 15-CV-4063.) Accordingly, the Court reviews the report
for “clear error.”
The Court finds no error in Judge Pollack’s well-reasoned Report and Recommendation.
Indeed, it is entirely appropriate that Wilt advise her client of the instant motion, which proposes
to provide a portion of the attorney’s fees obtained in this matter to Plaintiff’s former, nowsuspended attorney. The Court hereby affirms and adopts, in its entirety, Judge Pollack’s Report
and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel’s request is
denied without prejudice.
SO ORDERED:

/s/ Pamela K. Chen
PAMELA K. CHEN
United States District Judge

Dated: April 3, 2017
Brooklyn, New York
2