AKANIYENE WILLIAM ETUK v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 12/15/2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : : AKANIYENE WILLIAM ETUK, : : 1:24-cv-4962-GHW Plaintiff, : : ORDER -v- : : CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., : : Defendants. : : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: On August 8, 2025, Defendants City of New York and New York City Police Officer Frias (“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 51-53. On November 25, 2025, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a report and recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Dkt. No. 58 (the “R&R”). A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “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). Parties may raise specific, written objections to the report and recommendation within fourteen days of receiving a copy of the report. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Here, the R&R specifically stated: “The parties shall have fourteen (14) days (including weekends and holidays) from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections . . . THE FAILURE TO OBJECT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW.” R&R at 8-9. The Court reviews for clear error those parts of a report and recommendation to which no party has timely objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (A); Lewzs v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). No objection to the R&R was submitted within the permitted window. ‘The Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none. See Braunstein v. Barber, No. 06 Civ. 5978 (CS) (GAY), 2009 WL 1542707, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2009) (explaining that a “district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections have been made, as long as no clear error is apparent from the face of the record’). ‘The Court, therefore, accepts and adopts the R&R in its entirety. For the reasons articulated in the R&R, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This action is dismissed with prejudice. ‘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 IFP status 1s denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). ‘The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. ‘The Clerk of Court ts also directed to terminate all pending motions, to enter judgment for Defendants, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 15, 2025 New York, New York United States District Judge