Muhammad v. Hernandez

S.D. New York

Muhammad v. Hernandez

DecidedJanuary 26, 2022

Docket1:20-cv-03220

StatusUnknown

This text of Muhammad v. Hernandez (Muhammad v. Hernandez) 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

Muhammad v. Hernandez, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ISAIAH A. MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, 20-CV-3220 (JPO) -V- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND CAPTAIN HERNANDEZ, et al., RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: On August 3, 2021, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued a thorough Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), which recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Dkt. No. 26.) The Court has reviewed the Report. No party filed a timely objection to the Report; therefore, the Court reviews it for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Borcsok v. Early, 299 F. App’x 76, 77 (2d Cir. 2008). Magistrate Judge Cave’s well-reasoned Report presents no such errors and 1s therefore fully adopted by this Court. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 26, 2022 New York, New York

| ] J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ISAIAH A. MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, 20-CV-3220 (JPO) -V- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND CAPTAIN HERNANDEZ, et al., RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: On August 3, 2021, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued a thorough Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), which recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Dkt. No. 26.) The Court has reviewed the Report. No party filed a timely objection to the Report; therefore, the Court reviews it for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Borcsok v. Early, 299 F. App’x 76, 77 (2d Cir. 2008). Magistrate Judge Cave’s well-reasoned Report presents no such errors and 1s therefore fully adopted by this Court. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 26, 2022 New York, New York

| ] J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Muhammad v. Hernandez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muhammad-v-hernandez-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack