Johnson v. Prack et al
DECISION AND ORDER: The recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the 37 Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ORDERED, that Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 8/26/15. (served on plaintiff by regular and certified mail) (alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALBERT PRACK, Director of Special Housing;
P. KENNEDY, Hearing Officer,
Plaintiff, pro se
3402 Wright Ave., #3
Bronx, New York 10475
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Office of the Attorney General - Albany
Counsel for Defendants
Albany, New York 12224
Adrienne J. Kerwin, Esq.
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Latique Johnson filed this action on November 11, 2013. On April 28,
2015, the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by
Report-Recommendation that defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 37(d) and 41(b) be granted. No objections to the Report-Recommendation
Reviewing the docket information in this case, it appears that plaintiff has not made
any contact with the court since September 15, 2014. See ECF No. 29. The ReportRecommendation was sent via certified mail to plaintiff’s address of record on May 28, 2015
and was returned indicating that forwarding service was not available. See ECF Nos. 39 &
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court may, in its
discretion, dismiss an action based upon the failure of a plaintiff to prosecute the action, or
comply with any order of the court. See Dansby v. Albany County Correctional Facility Staff,
1996 WL 172699 (N.D.N.Y. April 10, 1996) (D.J. Pooler) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370
U.S. 626, 629 (1962)). Moreover, notwithstanding the leniency with which pro se plaintiffs are
treated, a plaintiff has the duty to inform the court of any address changes. See Lucas v.
Miles, 84 F.3d 532, 538 (2d Cir.1996) (pro se plaintiffs are entitled to a degree of leniency,
but that should not extend to a disregard of the court's plain directives).
“The demand that plaintiffs provide contact information is no esoteric rule of civil
procedure, but rather the obvious minimal requirement for pursuing a lawsuit.” Dumpson v.
Goord, 2004 WL 1638183, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. July 22, 2004). Additionally, Rule 41.2(b) of the
Local Rules of Practice for the Northern District of New York states that failure to notify the
court of a change of address in accordance with Local Rule 10.1(b) may result in the
dismissal of any pending action.
Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C.
Therefore, it is
1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED; and
2. The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance
with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2015
Utica, 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?