Hamilton v. Schenectady Police Department
DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days from the date of this Decision and Order to file her current address and objections, if any, to the Report-Recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Decision and Order, the Court will consider the Report-Recommendation unopposed and review for clear error only. Signed by Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 11/21/2022. (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail.) (nmk)
Case 1:22-cv-01046-BKS-DJS Document 8 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LAURA ELLEN HAMILTON,
SCHENECTADY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Plaintiff pro se
Laura Ellen Hamilton
Albany, NY 12216
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Laura Ellen Hamilton, commenced this proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2). This matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart who, on October 21, 2022, granted Plaintiff’s
application to proceed IFP, (Dkt. No. 4), and issued a Report-Recommendation and Order
recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 5).
Magistrate Judge Stewart determined that the Complaint failed to provide a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8. (Id. at 4–6). Plaintiff was informed that she had fourteen days within which to file written
objections to the report under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and that the failure to object to the report
within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Id. at 6). The Report-Recommendation
was sent to Plaintiff’s last known address, but returned to the Court marked “Returned to Sender,
Case 1:22-cv-01046-BKS-DJS Document 8 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 4
Not Deliverable As Addressed.” (Dkt. No. 6). Plaintiff, however, has received the ReportRecommendation: on October 25, 2022, Plaintiff made an in-person to request to the Albany’s
Clerk’s Office for a copy of the Report-Recommendation and was provided with a copy. To date,
Plaintiff has filed no objections.
Local Rule 10.1(c)(2) states, in relevant part: “All . . . pro se litigants must immediately
notify the Court of any change of address. Parties must file the notice of change of address with
the Clerk and serve the same on all other parties to the action. The notice must identify each and
every action to which the address shall apply.” N.D.N.Y. L.R. 10.1(c)(2); see also N.D.N.Y. L.R.
41.2(b) (“Failure to notify the Court of a change of address in accordance with L.R. 10.1(c)(2)
may result in the dismissal of any pending action.”). “For the orderly disposition of cases, it is
essential that litigants honor their continuing obligation to keep the Court informed of address
changes.” Hill v. Donelli, No. 05-cv-1245, 2008 WL 4663364, at *1, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
110595, at *3 (Oct. 20, 2008). In Dansby v. Albany County Correctional Staff, the court
It is neither feasible nor legally required that the clerks of the district courts
undertake independently to maintain current addresses on all parties to pending
actions. It is incumbent upon litigants to inform the clerk of address changes, for it
is manifest that communications between the clerk and the parties or their counsel
will be conducted principally by mail. In addition to keeping the clerk informed of
any change of address, parties are obliged to make timely status inquiries. Address
changes normally would be reflected by those inquiries if made in writing.
No. 95-cv-1525, 1996 WL 172699, at *1, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4782, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 10,
1996) (Pooler, J.) (citations omitted).
As a matter of course, courts in this district have dismissed actions when litigants have
failed to abide by either the Local Rules or orders related to address changes, and have
subsequently failed to prosecute their actions. See, e.g., Benitez v. Taylor, No. 13-cv-1404, 2014
WL 7151607, at *3, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173327, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2014)
Case 1:22-cv-01046-BKS-DJS Document 8 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 4
(recommending dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute under L.R. 10.1(c)(2) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), explaining that “[s]ince there is no way to contact or locate Benitez, the
imposition of a lesser sanction would be futile”), report and recommendation adopted, 2014
WL 7151607, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172553 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2014); Rosa v. Keiser, No. 10cv-1313, 2012 WL 2178961, at *1, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82528, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. May 14,
2012) (recommending dismissal of former inmate’s action for failure to notify the Court of
current address), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 2178933, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 81886 (N.D.N.Y. June 13, 2012).
Plaintiff is advised that failure to provide the Court with changes of address may lead to
dismissal of this action. However, in view of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will provide
Plaintiff an additional fourteen days to notify the Court of her current address and file objections,
if any, to the Report-Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days from the date of this Decision and
Order to file her current address and objections, if any, to the Report-Recommendation; and it is
ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Decision and Order, the Court will
consider the Report-Recommendation unopposed and review for clear error only. See Glaspie v.
N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., No. 10-cv-188, 2010 WL 4967844, at *1, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131629,
at *2–3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2010) (explaining that when no objections to a reportrecommendation are made, “the Court may adopt [it] if ‘there is no clear error on the face of the
record.’” (quoting Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)));
and it is further
Case 1:22-cv-01046-BKS-DJS Document 8 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 4
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2022
Syracuse, New York
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?