Edwards v. Syracuse Police Department et al
ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' August 30, 2017 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's # 5 amended complaint is DISM ISSED pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further ORDERS that Defendants' # 26 motion to compel is DENIED as moot. The Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 9/20/2017. [Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail.] (nmk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
GREGORY EDWARDS also known as
ABRAHAM MAMOUN, Officer; ROBERT
HARRINGTON, Officer; ANDREW
QUINN, Officer; and CITY OF SYRACUSE,
The Catholic Charities Facility
1074 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
Plaintiff pro se
CITY OF SYRACUSE LAW
300 City Hall
233 East Washington Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
Attorneys for Defendants
TODD M. LONG, ESQ.
SCULLIN, Senior Judge
Plaintiff commenced this action against the Syracuse Police Department and three individual
police officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Defendant officers assaulted him during
the course of a stop and subsequent arrest on December 22, 2013, and that Defendant Syracuse
Police Department has promulgated policies that permitted the unlawful assault to occur.
On December 30, 2016, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a Report, Recommendation and
Order, in which he, among other things, recommended that this Court dismiss Defendant Syracuse
Police Department from this action and substitute the City of Syracuse as a Defendant in its place.
See Dkt. No. 4 at 8. In an Order dated January 23, 2017, the Court accepted that recommendation.
See Dkt. No. 8 at 2-3.
Citing difficulties in communicating with Plaintiff and in obtaining requested pretrial
discovery, Defendants filed a motion requesting an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with their
discovery demands. See Dkt. No. 26. Since the filing of that motion, neither Defendants nor this
Court have been able to communicate with Plaintiff because he no longer resides at the address
listed on the Court's records and has not provided the Court or Defendants' counsel with his new
address or a means to communicate with him. Based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
requirement of this Court's Local Rules that he advise the Court and opposing counsel of any change
in address, Magistrate Judge Peebles, after evaluating the relevant factors and finding that they
weighed decidedly in favor of dismissal, recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff complaint
pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and deny Defendants' motion to compel
discovery as moot. See Dkt. No. 34 at 9-10.
The Clerk of the Court served Plaintiff with a copy of Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and
Recommendation by regular mail; however, that mail was returned to the Court with a notation that
it was "not deliverable as addressed[;] unable to forward." See Dkt. No. 35. Needless to say,
because Plaintiff never received a copy of Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and Recommendation,
he filed no objections thereto.1
When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the court
reviews that report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. See Lineares v. Mahunik,
No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2009) (citation and footnote
omitted). After conducting this review, "the Court may 'accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the . . . recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C.
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Peebles' August 30, 2017 Report and
Recommendation for clear error and manifest injustice; and, finding none, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' August 30, 2017 Report and Recommendation is
ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's amended complaint, see Dkt. No. 5, is DISMISSED pursuant to
Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to compel, see Dkt. No. 26, is DENIED as moot; and
the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close this case; and the Court
The Court notes that this is not the first time that documents which the Clerk of the
Court has mailed to Plaintiff have been returned as undeliverable. See Dkt. Nos. 30, 32, 33.
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 20, 2017
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?