Jelen v. Nassau Financial Federal Credit Union et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to_ prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b ). The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 10/2/2017. (Bollbach, Jean)cm by chambers

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------~---------------){ SEAN JELEN, Plaintiff, FILED. IN CLERK'S or;FICE U1S. DlSTRICT COURT E.o·.N.Y. * OCT 02 2017 * LONG ISLAND OFF,CE ORDER 16-CV-4198 (JFB) (AKT) -againstNASSAU FINANCIAL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION and EVERETT BOCCAFOLA, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------){ JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge: Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R," ECF No. 34) dated September 11, 2017 from Magistrate Ju~ge Tomlinson recommending that the Court dismiss this case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b ). The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (R&R at 6.) The R&~ was served on pro se plaintiff on September 11, 2017, and the date for filing any objections has accordingly since expired. Plaintiff has not filed any objection 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 this action with prejudice. Where there are no objections, the Court may adopt the report and recommendation without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear.that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); see also Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."); cf 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (requiring de novo review after objections). However, because the failure to file timely objections is not jurisdictional, a district judge may still excuse the failure to object in a timely manner and exercise its prevent plain error. discretio~ to decide the case on the merits to, for example, See Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[B]ecause the waiver rule is non jurisdictional, we 'may excuse the default in the interests ofjustice."' (quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155)). Rule 41 (b) authorizes a district court to "dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order, treating the noncompliance as a failure to prosecute." Simmons v. Abruzzo,. 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962)); see Lucas v. Miles, 84 F.3d 532, 535 (2d Cir. 1996) ("[D]ismissal [pursuant to Rule 41(b)] is aharsh remedy and is appropriate only in extreme situations."); Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2004) ("Rule [41(b)] is intended to serve as a rarely employed, but useful, tool of judicial administration available to district courts in managing their specific cases and general caseload."). Moreover, it is well-settled that a district court "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (citing Link, 370 U.S. at 630); see also Le Sane v. Hall's Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001) ("Although the text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) expressly addresses only the case in which a defendant moves for dismissal of an action, it is unquestioned that Rule 41 (b) also gives the district court authority to dismiss a plaintiffs case sua sponte for failure to prosecute."). Courts have repeatedly found that "[d]ismissal of an action is warranted when a litigant, whether represented or instead proceeding prose, fails to comply with legitimate court directives." Yu/le v. Barkley, No. 9:05-CV-0802, 2007 WL 2156644, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 25, 2007) (citations omitted). A district court contemplating dismissal of a plaintiffs claim for failure to prosecute 2 and/or to comply with a court order pursuant to Rule 4l{b) must consider: 1) the duration of plaintifrs failures or non-compliance; 2) whether plaintiff had notice that such conduct would result in dismissal; 3) whether prejudice to the defendant is likely to result; 4) whether the court balanced its interest in managing its docket against plaintifr s interest in receiving an opportunity to be heard; and 5) whether the court adequately considered the efficacy of a sanction less draconian than dismissal. Baffa v. Donaldson, Luf/dn & Jenrette Sec. Corp., 222 F.3d 52, 63 (2d Cir. 2000). In deciding whether dismissal is appropriate, "[g]enerally, no one factor is dispositive." Nita v. Conn. Dep 't _ ofEnv. Prof., 16 F.3d482, 485 (2d Cir. 1994); see Peart v. City ofNew York, 992 F.2d 458, 461(2d Cir. 1993) ('" [D]ismissal for want of prosecution is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge [and] the judge's undoubtedly wide latitude is conditioned by certain minimal requirements."') (quoting Merker v. Rice, 649 F.2d 171, 173-74 (2d Cii. 1981)). Although plaintiff has waived any objection to the R&R and thus de novo review is not required, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R in ·an abundance of caution. Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R de novo, the Court adopts the. findings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to_ prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b ). The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. SO @IHIBRED. ·::.-.--.:---=-~:--~~~-oc-~- Jo s h F. Bianco Un d States District Judge Dated: October~ 2017 Central Islip, New York 3

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?