Powell, Jr. v. New York City Department Of Corrections et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND DECISION AND ORDER: Adopting 15 Report and Recommendations. Magistrate Judge Peck advised Plaintiff that he had fourteen days to file an objection to the Report; however, no objection was filed by this deadline. Having reviewed the Report for clear error, this Court adopts the Report's Recommendation in full. This case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 6/09/2015) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------x
DANIEL POWELL, JR.,
Plaintiff,
,.,;
{'

-against-

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

C.O. CONCEPTIONAL,
Defendant.

14 Civ. 2725 (GBD) (AJP)

------------------------------------x
GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge:

Prose Plaintiff Dani el Powell, Jr. brings this action against Defendant C.O. Conceptional, 1
alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 25.)
Plaintiff seeks $500 million in damages "for desecration of [his] Rights and Religion" by the
Defendant, who allegedly confiscated Plaintiffs Koran. (Id. §§ lID, V.) By letter dated April 6,
2015, Defendant's counsel advised the Court that, "despite the further information provided by
Plaintiff about a 'C.O. Conceptional,' and after reasonable efforts, [the] DOC is unable to identify
this individual." (ECF No. 35.) On April 7, 2015, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck ordered
Plaintiff to provide a response by April 21, 2015, and that, "[a]bsent further information to allow
[Defendant] 'C.O. Conceptional' to be identified, the Court will have no choice but to dismiss the
case without prejudice." (ECF No. 36.) Because Plaintiff never responded to the April 7, 2015
Order, Defendant's counsel filed a letter request to dismiss this action. (ECF No. 37.) Before this
Court is Magistrate Judge Peck's May 22, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("Report") in which
he recommended that this Court dismiss this case without prejudice. (ECF No. 38.)

1

On Plaintiffs consent, all other defendants previously named in this action were dismissed with prejudice. (See
ECF No. 20.)

Magistrate Judge Peck advised Plaintiff that he had fourteen days to file an objection to the
Report; however, no objection was filed by this deadline. (See id.) Having reviewed the Report
for clear error, 2 this Court adopts the Report's recommendation in full.

This case is hereby

DISMISSED without prej~dice.

Dated: New York, New York

Jti~"7 ~&15
SO ORDERED.

I
United States District Judge

2

This Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings set forth in the Report. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(l)(C). When there are objections to the Report, the Court must make a de nova determination of those
portions of the Report to which objections are made. Id.; see also Rivera v. Barnhart, 423 F. Supp. 2d 271, 273
(S.D.N.Y. 2006). The district judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). The Court need not conduct a de nova
hearing on the matter. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675-76 (1980). Rather, it is sufficient that the
Court "arrive at its own, independent conclusion" regarding those portions of the Report to which objections were
made. Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (quoting Hernandez v. Estelle, 711F.2d619,
620 (5th Cir. 1983)). When no party files objections to a Report, the Court may adopt the Report if"there is no
clear error on the face of the record." Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
(quotation omitted).

2