Pointdujuour v. New York City Board/Department of Education et al

Filing 11

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendations: Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Peck's Report and Recommendation, this Court finds no clear error in the Report and adopts it in full. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 27, 2016 (ECF No. 1) and was ordered to serve Defendants with the Complaint within 90 days of October 19, 2016. (ECF No. 5.) Magistrate Judge Peck was lenient in allowing even more than 90 days to pass before issuing the February 10, 2017 Order for Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure of service. (ECF No. 9.) As of February 28, 2017, the date on which Magistrate Judge Peck issued the Report, Plaintiff had still not served any Defendant or responded to the order to show cause. (Report, at 1.) Therefore, this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of service, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 7/11/2017) (jwh)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------x DANIEL POINTDUJUOUR, Plaintiff, -against- ORDER NYC BOARD/DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & LA WREN CE BECKER 16 Civ. 7567 (GBD) (AJP) Defendants. ------------------------------------x GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Daniel Pointdujour, an employee of the Department of Education ("DOE"), filed this action against Defendants the New York City DOE and city employee Lawrence Becker, claiming that Defendants discriminated against him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 et seq; N.Y. Exec. Law§§ 290-297 et seq.; and N.Y.C. Admin. Code§§ 8-101-131 et seq., by terminating his employment. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck on October 19, 2016. (ECF No. 7.) Before this court is Magistrate Judge Peck's February 28, 2017 Report and Recommendation ("Report," ECF No. 10), recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. This Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). When no objections to a report are made, 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) (citation omitted). Magistrate Judge Peck advised the parties that failure to file timely objections to the ------- Report would constitute a waiver of those objections on appeal. (Report, at 1.) Neither party filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Peck's Report and Recommendation, this Court finds no clear error in the Report and adopts it in full. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 27, 2016 (ECF No. 1) and was ordered to serve Defendants with the Complaint within 90 days of October 19, 2016. (ECF No. 5.) Magistrate Judge Peck was lenient in allowing even more than 90 days to pass before issuing the February 10, 2017 Order for Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure of service. (ECF No. 9.) As of February 28, 2017, the date on which Magistrate Judge Peck issued the Report, Plaintiff had still not served any Defendant or responded to the order to show cause. (Report, at 1.) Therefore, this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of service, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dated: New York, New York July_, 2017 J; ~ U l j ~ • i i "'7 L:J i SO ORDERED. 2 ·-------

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?