Cass v. The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York

W.D. New York

Cass v. The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York

DecidedMay 3, 2023

Docket6:20-cv-06661

StatusUnknown

This text of Cass v. The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York (Cass v. The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cass v. The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, (W.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MICKEY CASS, Plaintiff, Case # 20-CV-6661-FPG

v. DECISION AND ORDER

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, et al.,

Defendants.

On February 14, 2023, the two remaining defendants—Joey Clinton and Brian Hembrook—moved to dismiss this action due to pro se Plaintiff Mickey Cass’s failure to cooperate in discovery. ECF No. 32. Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson issued a briefing schedule, ECF No. 34, but Plaintiff did not file a response. On April 7, 2023, Judge Payson issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion be granted. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff did not file an objection to the R&R. Generally, a court reviews portions of an R&R to which a party makes specific objections de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When a party does not object to the R&R, however, the court will review it for clear error. EEOC v. AZ Metro Distributors, LLC, 272 F. Supp. 3d 336, 339 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). “When performing such a clear error review, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 677, 686 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, the 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). The Court has reviewed Judge Payson’s R&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Payson’s R&R (ECF No. 35) and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 3, 2023 Rochester, New York . . FRANK P. G ‘CI, JR. nited States Distrist/Judge Western District of New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MICKEY CASS, Plaintiff, Case # 20-CV-6661-FPG

v. DECISION AND ORDER

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, et al.,

Defendants.

On February 14, 2023, the two remaining defendants—Joey Clinton and Brian Hembrook—moved to dismiss this action due to pro se Plaintiff Mickey Cass’s failure to cooperate in discovery. ECF No. 32. Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson issued a briefing schedule, ECF No. 34, but Plaintiff did not file a response. On April 7, 2023, Judge Payson issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion be granted. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff did not file an objection to the R&R. Generally, a court reviews portions of an R&R to which a party makes specific objections de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When a party does not object to the R&R, however, the court will review it for clear error. EEOC v. AZ Metro Distributors, LLC, 272 F. Supp. 3d 336, 339 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). “When performing such a clear error review, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 677, 686 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, the 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). The Court has reviewed Judge Payson’s R&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Payson’s R&R (ECF No. 35) and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 3, 2023 Rochester, New York . . FRANK P. G ‘CI, JR. nited States Distrist/Judge Western District of New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cass v. The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cass-v-the-united-states-district-court-eastern-district-of-new-york-nywd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack