Daniels v. City of New York

S.D. New York

Daniels v. City of New York

DecidedApril 22, 2022

Docket1:18-cv-03717

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Daniels v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEL OE CC #T : RONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 04/22/2022

DESHAWN DANIEL, 18-CV-3717 (RA) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v.

CITY OF NEW YORK,

Defendant.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: Now before the Court is Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s March 25, 2022 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), which recommends that the Court enter an order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims in this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Because Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se, a copy of the Report was mailed to him at his address on file with the Court, which was provided by Plaintiff’s former counsel as Plaintiff’s last-known address. On April 7, 2022, that mailing was returned as undeliverable.1 The parties have not filed any objections to the Report. “When the parties make no objections to [a] Report, the Court may adopt the Report if there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Galeana v. Lemongrass on Broadway Corp., 120 F. Supp. 3d 306, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the record for clear error, and having found none, the Court adopts Judge Gorenstein’s Report in its entirety.

1 Although the unsuccessful mailing suggests that Plaintiff may not have received a copy of the Report, the Report explains that Plaintiff was notified of previous orders warning him that his claims may be dismissed if he did not attend certain hearings, and that Plaintiff informed his former counsel that he would not be attending at least one of those hearings. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The choice not to file written objections waives appellate review of this decision. See United States v. James, 712 F.3d 79, 105 (2d Cir. 2013). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 22, 2022 New York, New York Ke ( Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEL OE CC #T : RONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 04/22/2022

DESHAWN DANIEL, 18-CV-3717 (RA) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v.

CITY OF NEW YORK,

Defendant.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: Now before the Court is Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s March 25, 2022 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), which recommends that the Court enter an order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims in this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Because Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se, a copy of the Report was mailed to him at his address on file with the Court, which was provided by Plaintiff’s former counsel as Plaintiff’s last-known address. On April 7, 2022, that mailing was returned as undeliverable.1 The parties have not filed any objections to the Report. “When the parties make no objections to [a] Report, the Court may adopt the Report if there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Galeana v. Lemongrass on Broadway Corp., 120 F. Supp. 3d 306, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the record for clear error, and having found none, the Court adopts Judge Gorenstein’s Report in its entirety.

1 Although the unsuccessful mailing suggests that Plaintiff may not have received a copy of the Report, the Report explains that Plaintiff was notified of previous orders warning him that his claims may be dismissed if he did not attend certain hearings, and that Plaintiff informed his former counsel that he would not be attending at least one of those hearings. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The choice not to file written objections waives appellate review of this decision. See United States v. James, 712 F.3d 79, 105 (2d Cir. 2013). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 22, 2022 New York, New York Ke ( Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Daniels v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack