Greathouse v. Vasquez et al

Filing 51

OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motion to dismiss Greathouse's false arrest claim against Vasquez, malicious prosecution claim against D.A. Vance, and municipal liability claim against the City of New York, and denies the motion to dismiss Greathouse's malicious prosecution claim against Vasquez. This case will now proceed to discovery under the able supervision of Judge Netburn. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 1/7/2022) (va)

Case 1:20-cv-08748-PAE-SN Document 51 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LEON GREATHOUSE,
-v-

Plaintiff,

20 Civ. 8748 (PAE) (SN)
OPINION & ORDER

FREDDY VASQUEZ et al.,
Defendants.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:

Currently pending is a motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff Leon Greathouse’s
(“Greathouse”) complaint, claiming false arrest and malicious prosecution against New York
Police Department Detective Freddie Vasquez (“Vasquez”), malicious prosecution against
District Attorney Cyrus Vance in his official capacity (“D.A. Vance”), and municipal liability
against the City of New York (the “City”). Dkts. 27, 32 (“Motion”). On May 11, 2021, this
Court referred the Motion to the Hon. Sarah Netburn, United States Magistrate Judge, for a
report and recommendation. Dkt. 29. Before the Court is the December 20, 2021 Report and
Recommendation of Judge Netburn, recommending that the Court (1) grant the motion to
dismiss Greathouse’s false arrest claim against Vasquez, malicious prosecution claim against
D.A. Vance, and municipal liability claim against the City of New York, and (2) deny the motion
to dismiss Greathouse’s malicious prosecution claim against Vasquez. Dkt. 50 (“Report”). The
Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts provided in the Report. For the
following reasons, the Court adopts the Report’s recommendation.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28

Case 1:20-cv-08748-PAE-SN Document 51 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “To 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.” Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF), 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169
(S.D.N.Y. 2003).
As no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate.
Careful review of Judge Netburn’s thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in
its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. Because the Report explicitly
states that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections,” and that “failure to file these timely objections will
result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal,” Report at 13, the parties’ failure to
object operates as a waiver of appellate review.1 See Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601,
604 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir.
1989) (per curiam)).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motion to dismiss Greathouse’s false
arrest claim against Vasquez, malicious prosecution claim against D.A. Vance, and municipal

1

The Report was mailed to Greathouse on December 20, 2021. See unnumbered docket entries
following Dkt. 50. Service was therefore complete “upon mailing” on December 20, 2021. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), “[w]hen a party may or
must act within a specified time after being served and service is made under Rule
5(b)(2)(C) (mail), . . . 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire.” This made
Greathouse’s objection period expire on January 6, 2022.

2

Case 1:20-cv-08748-PAE-SN Document 51 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3

liability claim against the City of New York, and denies the motion to dismiss Greathouse’s
malicious prosecution claim against Vasquez. This case will now proceed to discovery under the
able supervision of Judge Netburn.

PaJA.�

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER
United States District Judge

Dated: January 7, 2022
New York, New York

3