Jefferson v. Doe et al

Filing 159

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: SO ORDERED that Judge Lindsay's R&R (Docket Entry 157) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's request for copies of Defendants' 2015 motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 153) is DENIED and Defendants' 2017 motion t o dismiss this case (Docket Entry 154) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and mark the case CLOSED. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Plaint iff. 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 in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 11/28/2017. (CM to pro se plaintiff) (Florio, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
KEVIN L. JEFFERSON, o/b/o himself and
all other similarly situated inmates,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
08-CV-0204(JS)(ARL)

-againstJANE DOE, Corrections Officer, VINCENT
DEMARCO, Sheriff, BILL BOE, Corrections
Officer, FRANK FOE, Corrections Sergeant,
MARK MOE, Corrections Sergeant, CHARLES
EWALD, Warden, SAM SOE, Corrections
Sergeant, MR. VOGAL, Corrections
Officer (#653), WILL WOE, Corrections
Sergeant, ROBERT H., Deputy Warden
(CAO), COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, and SUFFOLK
COUNTY JAIL,

Defendants.
---------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Kevin L. Jefferson, pro se
c/o Beatrice Milton
294 Lake Point Drive
Middle Island, NY 11953
For Defendant:

Brian C. Mitchell, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney’s Office
100 Veterans Memorial Highway
P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are: (1) pro se Plaintiff Kevin
Jefferson’s (“Plaintiff”) request, dated August 1, 2017, seeking
an order directing the pro se office to provide him with copies of
Defendants

Sheriff

Vincent

DeMarco,

Warden

Charles

Ewald,

Corrections Officer Vogal, County of Suffolk, and Suffolk County

Jail’s (“Defendants”) May 13, 2015 motion to dismiss for failure
to prosecute, (Pl.’s Mem., Docket Entry 153, at 5; Defs.’ 2015
Mot. to Dismiss, Docket Entry 147); (2) Defendants’ August 15,
2017 letter motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute (Defs.’ 2017
Mot. to Dismiss, Docket Entry 154); and (3) Magistrate Judge
Arlene R. Lindsay’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending
that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for copies of Defendants’
2015 motion and grant Defendants’ 2017 motion to dismiss (R&R,
Docket Entry 157, at 1).

For the following reasons, the Court

ADOPTS Judge Lindsay’s R&R in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2008, Plaintiff commenced this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that various Suffolk County
officials violated his constitutional rights by restricting his
access to prisoner grievance forms and physically assaulting him.
(See generally Compl., Docket Entry 1.) Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint

naming

the

Defendants

defendants on November 20, 2008.
1-2.)

and

additional

unidentified

(Am. Compl., Docket Entry 48, at

On May 13, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for

failure to prosecute based on Plaintiff’s non-compliance with this
Court’s

orders,

which

the

Court

denied

without

prejudice

on

March 30, 2017, providing “Plaintiff with one final opportunity to
show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to
2

prosecute on or before June 1, 2017.” (Defs.’ 2015 Mot. to Dismiss
at 1; Mar. 30, 2017 Electronic Order.)

Plaintiff filed a request

dated August 1, 2017, asking that the Court direct the pro se
office

to

send

him

“copies

of

the

Defendants’ 2015 motion to dismiss.

relevant

pleadings”

from

(Pl.’s Mem. at 4-5.)

On

August 15, 2017, Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss for
failure to prosecute based on Plaintiff’s continued failure to
comply with Court orders.

(Defs.’ 2017 Mot. to Dismiss at 1.)

On

August 29, 2017, this Court referred Plaintiff’s request and
Defendants’ 2017 motion to dismiss to Judge Lindsay for a report
and recommendation on whether the motions should be granted.
(Referral Order, Docket Entry 157.)
THE R&R
On

November

2,

2017,

Judge

Lindsay

issued

her

R&R

recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for copies of
Defendants’ 2015 motion to dismiss and grant Defendants’ 2017
motion to dismiss.

(R&R at 1.)

She found that “[d]espite being

repeatedly advised by both the Court and defense counsel that he
was required to comply with court ordered deadlines, Jefferson has
[ ] not taken a single significant step to prosecute this action
in almost ten years.”

(R&R at 4.)

She also determined that “no

sanction less than dismissal will alleviate the prejudice to
[D]efendants in keeping the case open to say nothing of the need
to alleviate court congestion where the [P]laintiff has ignored
3

almost every order issued by this Court.”

(R&R at 4.)

She

concluded that Plaintiff’s failures to comply with Court orders
warrant dismissal of his case.

(R&R at 4.)

DISCUSSION
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
reject,

or

modify,

recommendations

in

made

by

whole
the

or

in

part,

magistrate

the

findings

judge.”

28

and

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). If no timely objections have been made, the “court
need only satisfy itself 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Objections were due within fourteen (14) days of service
of the R&R.

The time for filing objections has expired, and no

party has objected.

Accordingly, all objections are hereby deemed

to have been waived.
Upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds
Judge Lindsay’s R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free
of clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lindsay’s R&R (Docket
Entry 157) is ADOPTED in its entirety.

Plaintiff’s request for

copies of Defendants’ 2015 motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 153) is
DENIED and Defendants’ 2017 motion to dismiss this case (Docket
Entry 154) is GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter
4

judgment accordingly and mark the case CLOSED.

The Clerk of the

Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and
Order to the pro se Plaintiff.
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 in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose
of any appeal.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-

45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

November
28 , 2017
Central Islip, New York

5