Toolasprashad v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

Filing 50

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 43 recommendation to grant 8 Motion to Dismiss. Issued by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on September 30, 2013. (WJG) -CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LATCHMIE TOOLASPRASHAD,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
11-CV-922-A

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
Defendant.

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The pro se complaint of plaintiff Latchmie Toolasprashad
asserted that ICE failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request
for plaintiff Toolasprashad’s immigration records. On July 17, 2012, defendant
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) filed a motion to dismiss on grounds
of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and alternatively, for
summary judgment.
The Court appointed counsel to plaintiff Toolasprashad on December 11,
2012. As a result, plaintiff’s separate counsel in related proceedings eventually
received the documents plaintiff was seeking from ICE under the FOIA request.
Plaintiff Toolasprashad’s assigned counsel in this proceeding responded to
the Motion to Dismiss. After due consideration, on May 14, 2013, Magistrate Judge
Scott filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion to dismiss
and for summary judgment be granted on the ground that the proceedings are moot.

No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, but
plaintiff Toolasprashad sought pro se to dismiss the action without prejudice in a
filing on August 2, 2013. Plaintiff asserted he was unable timely to file objections
because he was denied meaningful access to legal materials. The Court denied the
motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice on August 6, 2013, and granted
plaintiff until September 27, 2013 to file objections to the pending Report and
Recommendation. No objections to the Report and Recommendation, or further
filings, have been made by plaintiff’s counsel, by plaintiff pro se, or by defendant
ICE.
Upon review pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636, Magistrate
Judge Scott’s Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 43, is adopted. For the
reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, defendant ICE’s motion for
summary judgment is granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED.

áB e|v{tÜw ]A TÜvtÜt
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: September 30, 2013

2