Thomas v. City of New York et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Finding no errors, the court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the case is dismissed pursuant to Federal Ru les of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) and 41(b). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant, serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order, the judgment, and an appeals packet on plaintiff, note service on the docket, and close the case. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/19/2017. (Grover, Vanish)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NEW YORK; CORRECTION
EDWIN MONTANEZ; CORRECTION
MICHAEL LYNCH; CORRECTION
GERALD GATON; CORRECTION
DANIELOR BLANCO; and
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
Before the court is a Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
38, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)) from Magistrate Judge Ramon
Reyes recommending that the court dismiss pro se plaintiff James
Thomas’ action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41.
The R&R instructed
that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14)
days of receipt of the R&R.
(See ECF No. 38, R&R at 3.)
was served the R&R on November 18, 2016, and accordingly, the date
for filing any objections has since expired.
Plaintiff has not
filed any objections to the R&R, and for the reasons set forth
below, the court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R in its
entirety and dismisses plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff James Thomas, proceeding pro se, commenced the
action on September 1, 2015, against the City of New York and
numerous correction officers at the Department of Correction,
alleging that he was physically attacked and the subject of
unjustified use of force by the correction officers.
(ECF No. 1,
discovery, failed to comply with court orders ordering him to
provide defendants with responses to their discovery demands, and
failed to appear for a scheduled telephone conference.
Magistrate Judge Reyes that his continued failure to respond to
defendants’ discovery demands would result in a recommendation
that his case be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure
to follow orders of the court.
(ECF order dated August 22, 2016.)
After plaintiff failed to respond to discovery, or otherwise
respond to the court’s order, Magistrate Judge Reyes issued the
37(b)(2)(A) for failure to obey an order to provide discovery, and
Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court
Plaintiff has not submitted any objections to the R&R.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate
judge” in an R&R.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Where no objections
are made, the court may adopt the R&R without de novo review, see
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), and need only review for
clear error on the face of the record.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
Baptichon v. Nev. State Bank, 304 F. Supp. 2d 451, 453 (E.D.N.Y.
2004), aff’d, 125 F. App’x 374 (2d Cir. 2005).
The court has reviewed the unopposed R&R for clear error,
including the factors prescribed by the Second Circuit for the
court’s consideration of dismissals pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 37 and 41.
See Lee v. Katz, 669 F. App’x 57, 58
(2d Cir. 2016) (summary order); Drake v. Norden Sys., Inc., 375
F.3d 248, 254 (2d Cir. 2004).
The court finds no error and adopts
Accordingly, the case is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) and 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant,
serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order, the judgment, and an
appeals packet on plaintiff, note service on the docket, and close
September 19, 2017
Brooklyn, New York
Hon. Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge
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?