McAuley v. City of New York et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 20 Report and Recommendations. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R is adopted in full and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the R&R gave th e parties adequate warning, see R&R, Dkt. 20 at 2, the failure to file any objections to the R&R precludes appellate review of this decision. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clea r notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because appellate review is precluded, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, permission to proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of appeal is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the address listed on the docket and to note the mailing on the docket. The Clerk is further directed to terminate all open motions and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/6/2022) (tg)

Case 1:21-cv-07413-VEC-VF Document 21 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1SDNY
USDC of 4
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE FILED: 05/06/2022
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
JAMES MCAULEY,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
:
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------------------- X

21-CV-7413 (VEC)
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
WHEREAS on September 2, 2021, Plaintiff James McAuley, proceeding pro se, filed a
complaint against the City of New York, alleging claims of false arrest and malicious
prosecution, Dkt. 2;
WHEREAS when he filed his complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated on Rikers Island and
listed his address as the prison facility, Dkt. 2;
WHEREAS on September 22, 2021, Plaintiff was informed that it is his “obligation to
promptly submit a written notification to the Court if [his] address changes, and the Court may
dismiss the action if [he] fails to do so,” Dkt. 4 at 2;
WHEREAS on September 24, 2021, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge
Freeman for general pretrial management and for the preparation of reports and
recommendations (“R&Rs”) on any dispositive motions, Dkt. 6;
WHEREAS on December 15, 2021, Magistrate Judge Freeman reported that Defense
counsel informed her Chambers that Plaintiff has been released from custody and that his
whereabouts were unknown, Dkt. 15;

Case 1:21-cv-07413-VEC-VF Document 21 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 4

WHEREAS Magistrate Judge Freeman entered an order, “caution[ing] [Plaintiff] that he
must keep the Court apprised of an address where he may be contacted, and if he fails to do so,
his case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute,” id.;
WHEREAS on December 20, 2021, Defendant informed the Court that all mail it had
sent to Plaintiff had been returned as undeliverable, that Plaintiff did not appear to be in City or
State custody, and that a public records search did not yield any contact information for Plaintiff,
Dkt. 16;
WHEREAS on December 20, 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (an
interested party) similarly reported that all mail it had sent to Plaintiff had been returned as
undeliverable and that it was unable to obtain other contact information for Plaintiff, Dkt. 17;
WHEREAS on February 22, 2022, Judge Freeman ordered Plaintiff to show cause, by no
later than March 11, 2022, why she should not recommend that Plaintiff’s complaint be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Dkt. 19;
WHEREAS Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order to show cause;
WHEREAS on March 30, 2022, Judge Freeman entered an R&R, recommending that
Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, Dkt. 20;
WHEREAS in the R&R, Judge Freeman notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), they had fourteen days to file written objections to the
R&R’s findings, id. at 2;
WHEREAS Judge Freeman further noted that failure to file objections would result in
both the waiver of objections and the preclusion of appellate review, id.;
WHEREAS no objections were filed by either party;

2

Case 1:21-cv-07413-VEC-VF Document 21 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 4

WHEREAS in reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C);
WHEREAS when, as here, no party objects to the R&R, the Court may accept the R&R
provided that “there is no clear error on the face of the record,” Heredia v. Doe, 473 F. Supp. 2d
462, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985));
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note;
WHEREAS an error is clear when the reviewing court is left with a “definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed,” see Cosme v. Henderson, 287 F.3d 152, 158 (2d
Cir. 2002) (quoting McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20 (1954)); and
WHEREAS careful review of the R&R reveals that there is no clear error;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R is adopted in full and Plaintiff’s complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the R&R gave the parties adequate warning,
see R&R, Dkt. 20 at 2, the failure to file any objections to the R&R precludes appellate review of
this decision. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002)
(“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a
magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the
magistrate’s decision.”).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because appellate review is precluded, the Court
certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken
in good faith, and, therefore, permission to proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of appeal is
denied.

3

Case 1:21-cv-07413-VEC-VF Document 21 Filed 05/06/22 Page 4 of 4

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the address
listed on the docket and to note the mailing on the docket. The Clerk is further directed to
terminate all open motions and to close this case.

SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
VALERIE CAPRONI
United States District Judge

Date: May 6, 2022
New York, NY

4