Corye et al v. Doe 1 et al
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 44 Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff Christina Ferkey's claims in the Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the case caption of this action so as to terminate Christina Ferkey as a plaintiff. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 12/1/17. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiffs via regular mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JULIAN CORYE; and CHRISTINA FERKEY,
POLICE OFFICER MICHEL, Supervisor on Duty;
and SERGEANT ANDERSON,
JULIAN CORYE and CHRISTINA FERKEY
Plaintiffs, Pro Se
17960 Ranchera Road
Shasta Lake, California 96019
THE REHFUSS LAW FIRM, P.C.
Counsel for Defendants
40 British American Boulevard
Latham, New York 12110
ABIGAIL REHFUSS, ESQ.
STEPHEN J. REHFUSS, ESQ.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se personal injury action filed by Julian Corye and
Christina Ferkey (“Plaintiffs”) against the two above-captioned employees of the City of Albany
Police Department in Albany, New York (“Defendants”), is U.S. Magistrate Judge Thérèse
Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff Christina Ferkey’s claims
against Defendants be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Dkt.
No. 44.) Plaintiff Christina Ferkey has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation and
the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) For the reasons set
forth below, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety and this action on behalf of
Plaintiff Christina Ferkey is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
When, as here, no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.: see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Based upon a review of this matter, the Court can find no clear error in the ReportRecommendation, clear or otherwise: Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards,
accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court
accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. (Dkt. No. 44.)
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 44) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff Christina Ferkey claims in the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No.
5) are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute; and it is further
ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the case caption of this action so as
to TERMINATE Christina Ferkey as a plaintiff.
Dated: December 1, 2017
Syracuse, New York
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge
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?