Rafiq v. City of New York et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM DECISION for 24 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R and dismisses the action without prejudice in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Clerk is instructed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 8/26/2013) The Clerks Office Has Mailed Copies. (rj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------x
KAISER RAFIQ,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------x
Briccetti, J.:

MEMORANDUM DECISION
12 CV 2735 (VB)

Now pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), dated July 23, 2013 (Doc. # 24), recommending this case be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R as the
opinion of the Court.
The Court presumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case.
I.

Standard of Review
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s recommended ruling “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). Parties may raise objections to the recommended ruling, but they
must be “specific” and “written,” and submitted “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy
of the recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The district court may adopt those portions of the recommended ruling to which no timely
objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record. See
Wilds v. UPS, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

1

II.

Discussion
By order dated June 20, 2013, Judge Davison directed plaintiff to provide his address to

the Court and defendants within 30 days. Plaintiff failed to do so, and has not subsequently
updated his address, shown cause why an extension to do so is warranted, or contacted the court
(in writing or otherwise).
Plaintiff has not objected to Judge Davison’s R&R, which the Court finds contains no
error, clear or otherwise. See Wilds v. UPS, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d at 169.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R and dismisses this action without prejudice in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
The Clerk is instructed to close this case.

Dated: August 26, 2013
White Plains, NY
SO ORDERED:

____________________________
Vincent L. Briccetti
United States District Judge

2