Flores v. Nassau County Sheriff's Dept.

Filing 29

ORDER: As set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court adopts the February 11, 2025 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks (ECF No. 27 ) in its entirety and dismisses the Complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. C iv. P., due to the failure of Plaintiff Christopher Flores ("Flores") to prosecute this action. Case closed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good fait h 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 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Flores at his address of record, include the notation "Legal Mail" on the envelope, and record such mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury on 3/7/2025. (NB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mr. Christopher Flores,
Plaintiff,
-v-

2:24-cv-1611
(NJC) (JMW)

Nassau County Sheriff’s Dept.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY, United States District Judge:
On February 28, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Christopher Flores (“Flores”) filed the Complaint
in this action against Defendant Nassau County Sheriff’s Department (“County”). (ECF No. 1.)
On February 11, 2025, Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks issued a Report and Recommendation
(the “R&R”) recommending that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) due to Flores’s failure to prosecute this
action. (R&R, ECF No. 27.) A copy of the R&R was filed on the Court’s Electronic Docket on
February 11, 2025. (Id.) The County mailed a copy of the R&R to Flores at his two last known
addresses of record via certified mail on February 12, 2025 (Aff. Serv., ECF No. 28.) The R&R
instructed that any objections to the R&R must be submitted in writing to the Clerk of Court
within fourteen (14) days of service. (R&R at 6–7.)
More than fourteen days have elapsed since the R&R was published on the Court’s
docket on February 11, 2025, and fourteen days have elapsed since the R&R was mailed to
Flores at his addresses of record via certified mail on February 12, 2025. No party has filed an
objection to the R&R. In reviewing a report and recommendation, the court “may accept, reject,

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no objections are filed, a district court reviews a report and
recommendation for clear error. King v. Paradise Auto Sales I, Inc., No. 15-cv-1188, 2016 WL
4595991, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2016) (citation omitted); Covey v. Simonton, 481 F. Supp. 2d
224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)).
Because no party has filed timely objections to the R&R, the Court reviews the R&R for
clear error. Having conducted a review of the record and the applicable law, and having
reviewed the R&R de novo out of an abundance of caution, the Court adopts the thorough and
well-reasoned R&R (ECF No. 27) in its entirety. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., due to Flores’s failure to prosecute this
action.
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 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Flores at his
address of record, include the notation “Legal Mail” on the envelope, and record such mailing on
the docket.

Dated: Central Islip, New York
March 7, 2025
/s/ Nusrat J. Choudhury
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY
United States District Judge

2