Shapiro v. Darel, et al
Filing
65
DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the Report, Recommendation and Order, plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court shall take all s teps necessary to close the case. A copy of the Decision and Order and this entry have been mailed to Robert L. Shapiro, 154-71 Brookville Blvd., Rosedale, NY 11422. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 8/28/2023. (LAS)This was mailed to: Robert Shapiro.Clerk to Follow up
Case 1:17-cv-00376-RJA-HKS Document 65 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________
ROBERT SHAPIRO,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
17-CV-376-A
v.
DANIEL J. DAREL,
Defendant.
______________________________________
In this prisoner civil rights action commenced pro se by Plaintiff Robert
Shapiro, a former inmate who was in the custody of the New York State Department
of Corrections and Community Supervision at the time his claims arose, Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After originally being
referred to Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for the
performance of pretrial proceedings, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge
H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. Dkts. 27 & 56.
On August 4, 2023, Magistrate Judge Schroeder issued a Report,
Recommendation and Order (“RR&O”) recommending that Plaintiff’s case be
dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Dkt. 64.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) provides, “[t]he district judge must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.” Here, no objections to the RR&O have been filed. “When no
timely objection is filed, the [C]ourt need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
1
Case 1:17-cv-00376-RJA-HKS Document 65 Filed 08/28/23 Page 2 of 3
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” 1983 Advisory
Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Patton v. Ford Motor Co., 14-CV-0308RJA-HBS, 2017 WL 2177621, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76148, *5 (W.D.N.Y. May 18,
2017).
The Court finds no error with respect to Magistrate Judge Schroeder’s
recommendation, and hereby adopts the RR&O in its entirety. The Court further
finds that although Rule 41(b) does not explicitly address sua sponte dismissal for
failure to prosecute, it is well settled that a district court may, “based on both its
inherent authority and Rule 41(b) – dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to
prosecute or failure to comply with a court order.” Hall v. Oriska Corp Gen. Contr.,
2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 33520, *5 (2d Cir. 2022).
As such, it is hereby
ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the RR&O and above, Plaintiff’s
lawsuit is dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of the Court shall take all steps necessary to
close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__s/Richard J. Arcara________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: August 28, 2023
Buffalo, New York
2
Case 1:17-cv-00376-RJA-HKS Document 65 Filed 08/28/23 Page 3 of 3
3
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?