Payne v. City of New York Police Department et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, In accordance with that standard of review, the Court has carefully examined Judge Levy's R&R, and finds it to be correct, well-reasoned and free of any clear error. The Court, therefore, adopts the R& R, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court. For the foregoing reasons. Magistrate Judge Levy's R&R is adopted, in its entirety, as theopinion of the Court. The Corporation Counsel's 11 motion is granted, and these actions are dismiss ed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Orderwould not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal . Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close these cases. (Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 5/09/2019) c/m Fwd. for Judgment. (Galeano, Sonia)

FiLED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

* f-^ 13 280 W
BROOKLYN OFFICE

PATRICIA ATKINS-PAYNE,

Plaintiff,

ORDER

17-CV-2985(ENV)
(RML)

-againstLIEUTENANT McLAUGHLIN,et al..
Defendants.

ELLIOT O.PAYNE,

Plaintiff,

17-CV-3392(ENV)
(RML)

-againstLIEUTENANT McLAUGHLIN,et al..
Defendants.

VITALIANO,D.J.

Pro se plaintiffs Patricia Atkins-Payne and Elliot O.Payne commenced these actions on
May 12, 2017, and June 2, 2017, respectively, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Occasioned by their failure to comply with the Court's October 3, 2013 Order and provide an
executed release for access to records concerning Elliot Payne's November 2015 arrest, the New

York City Corporation Counsel, on February 14, 2019, moved for both cases to be dismissed for
lack of prosecution. The Court respectfully referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Robert M.
Levy.

By Report and Recommendation("R&R"), dated April 11, 2019, Judge Levy
recommended that the motion be granted and the actions dismissed. Dkt. No. 12(both actions).

Judge Levy had attempted to schedule an in-person conference before issuing his R&R,but
"neither plaintiff appeared or requested an adjournment, and attempts to reach them by telephone
1

were unavailing." R&R at 2. With notice of the time to object properly given,see id., no party
has filed an objection to the R&R,and the time to do so has passed.

Where no timely written objection has been filed, a districtjudge need only review an
R&R for clear error. See Dafeng Hengwei Textile Co. v. Aceco Indus. & Commercial Corp., 54
F. Supp. 3d 279, 283(E.D.N.Y. 2014). In accordance with that standard of review, the Court has
carefully examined Judge Levy's R&R,and finds it to be correct, well-reasoned and free of any
clear error. The Court,therefore, adopts the R&R,in its entirety, as the opinion ofthe Court.
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons. Magistrate Judge Levy's R&R is adopted, in its entirety, as the
opinion ofthe Court. The Corporation Counsel's motion is granted, and these actions are
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, informa pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45,82 S. Ct. 917,8 L. Ed.
2d 21 (1962).

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close these cases.
So Ordered.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
May 9,2019

/S/ USDJ ERIC N. VITALIANO
ERIC N. VITALIANO

United States District Judge