Courtney Griffin v. Lakewood Police Department, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: February 9, 2026
• Docket: 3:22-cv-02725
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

CHAMBERS OF U.S. COURTHOUSE ZAHID N. QURAISHI 402 EAST STATE STREET, ROOM 4000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TRENTON, NJ 08608

February 9, 2026 LETTER ORDER Re: Courtney Griffin v. Lakewood Police Department, et al. Civil Action No. 22-2725 (ZNQ)(RLS) Dear Parties: This matter comes before the Court upon a Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”, ECF No. 32) filed by the Honorable Rukhsanah Singh, U.S.M.J., recommending that the undersigned dismiss this matter without prejudice due to the failure of Plaintiff Courtney Griffin (“Plaintiff”) to prosecute. The Recommendation is the product of Judge Singh’s Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause or object to the Recommendation. The relevant facts are straightforward. On or about December 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit asserting certain civil rights claims against the named defendants in New Jersey Superior Court, Ocean County division. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) The defendants then removed that suit to this Court on May 10, 2022. (Id.) Judge Singh conducted an initial scheduling conference and entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order setting various deadlines for discovery. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel then began to engage in a pattern of delinquency before Judge Singh. It began with his failure to timely serve his initial disclosures or initial written discovery requests. (Recommendation at 2.) A month later, he failed to respond to Judge Singh’s Order requiring him to report on the status of his discovery efforts. (Id.) During a telephonic status conference two weeks later, he admitted he still had not served his client’s initial disclosures, her discovery requests, or her responses to the defendants’ discovery requests. (Id.) Judge Singh issued an order compelling him to meet his client’s discovery obligations and to report their completion by a date certain. (Id.; ECF No. 18.) Counsel again failed to comply. (Recommendation at 2.) Judge Singh then ordered a telephonic status conference. (Id. at 3.) Counsel failed to attend. (Id.) After a month without updates from Plaintiff’s counsel, Judge Singh issued the Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution that culminated in the Recommendation that this matter be dismissed. As noted above, Plaintiff’s counsel neither responded to the Order nor objected to the Recommendation. Generally, a Magistrate Judge may sua sponte issue a report and recommendation that a matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Nieves v. Thorne, 790 F. App’x 355 (3d Cir. 2019). Where, as here, no objection has been made to a report and recommendation within 14 days, the district court should, as a matter of good practice, satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record before adopting the report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (noting a district court should give “some level of review” to a report and recommendation by a magistrate judge). The district court may accept, reyect, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made in the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); L. Civ. R. 72.1(b)(3). Only if the district court adopts a report and recommendation does it have the force of law. See United Steelworkers of Am. v. N.J. Zine Co., 828 F.2d 1001, 1005 (3d Cir. 1987). The undersigned has reviewed the Recommendation and finds no error in Judge Singh’s concise and well-reasoned decision. Accordingly, for the same reasons stated in the Recommendation, IT IS on this 9th day of February 2026, ORDERED that the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22); it is further ORDERED that this matter is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office is hereby instructed to mark this matter CLOSED. ; — K,.. ° Z N. QURABHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE