Mallgren v. New York City Police Department et al

Filing 8

ORDER - That the 4 Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks filed May 5, 2014 is ACCEPTED in its entirety. That this action is dismissed without prejudice for the plaintiff's failure to file a new in forma pauperis applciation or pay the filing fee to maintain this action. That the plaintiff's 6 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 7/21/2014. (jel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN
Plaintiff,
-v.Civil Action No.
1:14-cv-333 (GLS/TWD)
NEW YORK CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN
Pro Se
777 Seaview Avenue
Staten Island, New York 10305
GARY L. SHARPE,
CHIEF JUDGE

ORDER
The above-captioned matter comes to this court following a ReportRecommendation by Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks, duly filed
May 5, 2014. Following fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk
has sent the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein.
In addition, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and a Motion for
Reconsideration to strike the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (Dkt. Nos. 5-6).

No objections1 having been filed, and the court having reviewed the
Magistrate Judge’s Report-Recommendation for clear error, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Therese Wiley Dancks filed May 5, 2014 (Dkt. No. 4) is ACCEPTED in its
entirety for the reasons stated therein; and it is further
ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice for the
plaintiff’s failure to file a new in forma pauperis application or pay the filing
fee to maintain this action; and it is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 6)
is DENIED as moot; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Order to the parties in
accordance to the local rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

In light of the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration that was filed on May 12, 2014, the court
construed his motion as a letter request seeking an extension of time to file objections to the reportrecommendation. The court granted plaintiff until July 7, 2014 to file any objections to the pending reportrecommendation. Despite the passage of the due date, the plaintiff has failed to file any objections to the
report-recommendation.

2

Dated:

July 21, 2014
Albany, New York

3