Davenport v. County of Suffolk

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Clint Davenport,

Plaintiff, 2:22-cv-4030 -v- (NJC) (ST)

County of Suffolk,

Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY, United States District Judge: On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff Clint Davenport (“Mr. Davenport”), commenced this action against Defendant County of Suffolk (“the County”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On May 9, 2024, Mr. Davenport filed an Amended Complaint. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 27.) On September 26, 2024, the County filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Mot. J. Pleadings, ECF No. 35.) This Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione. (Elec. Order, May 7, 2025.) On August 13, 2025, Judge Tiscione issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) recommending that the County’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be granted. (R&R at 1, 14, ECF No. 37.) A copy of the R&R was provided to the County’s counsel via ECF on August 13, 2025. (See id.) The County’s counsel filed a certificate of service on August 14, 2025, affirming that she had served the R&R on Mr. Davenport that same day by mailing it to his address of record by certified mail. (See ECF No. 38.) Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits service of a paper by “mailing it to the person’s last known address—in which event service is complete upon mailing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). Therefore, the R&R was served on Mr. Davenport on August 14, 2025. The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R were required to be submitted in writing to the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (R&R at 15.) Accordingly, the deadline to object to the R&R was August 28, 2025—fourteen days after the County’s counsel served Mr. Davenport with the R&R. The date for filing any objections to the R&R has thus expired, and no party has filed an objection to the R&R. In reviewing a report and recommendation, 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). If no objections are filed, a district court reviews a report and recommendation for clear error. King v. Paradise Auto Sales I, Inc., No. 15-cv-1188, 2016 WL 4595991, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2016) (citation omitted); Covey v. Simonton, 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). Because no party has timely filed objections to the R&R, I may review the R&R for clear error. King, 2016 WL 4595991, at *1. Nevertheless, I reviewed the R&R de novo out of an abundance of caution. Having reviewed the motion papers, the applicable law, and the R&R, I adopt the thorough and well-reasoned R&R’s recommendation that the County’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be granted. Accordingly, the County’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 35) is granted.

Dated: Central Islip, New York September 4, 2025

/s/ Nusrat J. Choudhury NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY United States District Judge