Dozier v. Boyd et al

Filing 28

ORDER: ORDERED that 26 Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. ORDERED, that 22 Defendants' to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b) is GRANTED. The Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 3/11/14. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LAVELL DOZIER,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:12-CV-1002 (LEK/RFT)

NURSE BOYD, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on February
11, 2014, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 26 (“Report-Recommendation”). Magistrate Judge Treece
recommended that the Court grant Defendants Nurse Boyd and Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to dismiss Plaintiff Lavell Dozier’s
(“Plaintiff”) Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b) after Plaintiff
failed to comply with a discovery scheduling Order and an Order instructing him to update his
mailing address. See Dkt. Nos. 15; 22 (“Motion”); 24; Report-Rec.
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings
and recommendations.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). “If no objections are filed . . .
reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error.” Edwards v. Fischer,
414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir.
2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate
judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301,

306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed within the allotted time period.
See generally Docket. The Court has conducted a thorough review of the record and the ReportRecommendation and finds no clear error.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. No. 22) to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b) is GRANTED. The Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and
it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

March 11, 2014
Albany, New York

2