Jefferson v. Rose et al

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lindsay's R&R (Docket Entry 63) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants' motion to dismiss this case (Docket Entry 58) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Co urt 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 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. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/17/2018. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
KEVIN L. JEFFERSON,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
12-CV-1334(JS)(ARL)

EDWARD ROSE, Police Officer, Shield No.
5096, JOHN DOE PATROL UNIT 314, BARRY
BOE, Patrol Unit 323A Driver, FREDDY
FOE, Patrol Unit 323A Passenger, JERRY
JOE, Patrol Unit 3-10, COUNTY OF
SUFFOLK, DANIEL G. KOENIG, P.O. CONYE,
EDWARD WEBBER, and SUFFOLK COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT,
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) Defendants Police
Officer Edward Rose, Daniel G. Koenig, Police Officer Conye, Edward
Webber, the County of Suffolk, and the Suffolk County Police
Department’s (collectively, “Defendants”) November 15, 2017 letter
motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss,
Docket Entry 58); and (2) Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay’s

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court
grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
5-6.)

(R&R, Docket Entry 63, at 1,

For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lindsay’s

R&R in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
On March 16, 2012, pro se Plaintiff Kevin Jefferson
(“Plaintiff”) commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that Police Officers Rose and Cronin1 and various other
defendants violated his constitutional rights.
Compl., Docket Entry 1.)

(See generally

Following the entry of a preliminary

injunction in his favor, Plaintiff amended his Complaint on May 10,
2012 and named the County of Suffolk as a defendant.

(Apr. 23,

2012 Order, Docket Entry 16; Am. Compl., Docket Entry 17.)

On

April 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed an additional action against Police
Officer

Conye,

Edward

Webber,

the

Suffolk

County

Police

Department, and the County of Suffolk, again alleging violations
of his civil rights.

(R&R at 1; see Docket No. 13-CV-2454.)

The

two cases were consolidated and the Jefferson v. Conye matter was
closed pursuant to this Court’s May 10, 2013 Order.

(May 10, 2013

Order, Docket Entry 27.)

Police Officer Cronin was a fictitious name, (Compl. ¶ 5), and
on April 10, 2015, he was terminated as a defendant and replaced
with Police Officer Koenig. (Apr. 10, 2015 Minute Order, Docket
Entry 47.)
1

2

On November 15, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss

for

failure

to

prosecute

compliance with court orders.

based

on

Plaintiff’s

non-

(Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss.)

November 27, 2017, Judge Lindsay issued her R&R.

On

(See generally

R&R.)
THE R&R
In her R&R, Judge Lindsay recommended that this Court
grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

(R&R at 1, 5-6.)

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, [Plaintiff] has chosen over the last 5 years to proceed
in this matter whenever it strikes him.”

(R&R at 5.)

Judge

Lindsay also determined that “no sanction less than dismissal will
alleviate the prejudice to [D]efendants in keeping the case open
for five years to say nothing of the need to alleviate court
congestion where [Plaintiff] has ignored almost every order issued
by this Court.”

(R&R at 5.)

She concluded that Plaintiff’s

failures to comply with court orders warrant dismissal of his case.
(R&R at 5-6.)
DISCUSSION
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
reject,

or

modify,

recommendations

made

in
by

whole
the

or

in

part,

magistrate

the

judge.”

findings
28

and

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). If no timely objections have been made, the “court
3

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 63) is ADOPTED in its entirety.

Defendants’ motion to

dismiss this case (Docket Entry 58) 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 Plaintiff.

[BOTTOM OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

4

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:

January
17 , 2018
Central Islip, New York

5