Dunham v. City of New York et al

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 38 Report and Recommendations, 33 Motion to Strike filed by Jermaine Dunham. The Court's review finds no clear error, and accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Pitman's R&R in its entirety. The Motion to Strike is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 3/11/2013) (mt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------x
JERMAINE DUNHAM,
Plaintiff,
II Civ. l223 (ALC) (HBP)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

- against -

CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, COMM. RAYMOND KELLY, PO
PHILIP LOBELLO, PO LEMAR OLIVER, and
ALAIN POLYNICE,
Defendants.

USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #;_ _ _ _--:-=_
. GATE FIJ...ED: '3 -1/- 13

-------------------------------------x
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge:

On February 16, 2011, pro se Plaintiff Jermaine Dunham
filed a Complaint against Defendants City of New York, New York
City Police Department, Commissioner Raymond Kelly, Police
Officer Philip Lobello, Police Officer Lemar Oliver, and Alain
Polynice, alleging:

(1) Plaintiff was subjected to excessive

force during the course of an arrest, and (2) Plaintiff received
inadequate medical care after his arrest in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman
pursuant to a January 12, 2012 Order.

Plaintiff filed a Motion

to Strike on July 24, 2012, arguing Defendants' Answer should be
stricken from the record pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)
because it fails to raise a sufficient defense.

1

Plaintiff also

seeks a Temporary Restraining Order for the past actions alleged
in the Complaint.

No further briefing was submitted in response

to Plaintiff's Motion.
After careful consideration, Magistrate Judge Pitman issued
a Report and Recommendation (nR&R") , proposing the Motion to
Strike be denied.

Despite notification of the right to object

to the R&R, no objections were filed.

When no objection is

made, the Court subjects the R&R to a clear error review. Arthur
v. Goord, No. 06 Civ. 326 (DLC) , 2008 WL 482866, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 21, 2008)

(nTo accept those portions of the report to which

no timely objection has been made,

'a district court need only

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record.

'I{

(quoting Figueroa v. Riverbay Corp., No. 06 Civ. 5364

(PAC), 2006 WL 3804581, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006))).

The

Court's review finds no clear error, and accordingly, the Court
ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Pitman's R&R in its entirety. The Motion
to Strike is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York
March ~, 2013

Andrew L. Carter, Jr.

United States District Judge

2