Naquon Ford v. Sergeant Mark Curatolo, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedOctober 14, 2025
Docket2:21-cv-05945
StatusUnknown

This text of Naquon Ford v. Sergeant Mark Curatolo, et al. (Naquon Ford v. Sergeant Mark Curatolo, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Naquon Ford v. Sergeant Mark Curatolo, et al., (E.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X NAQUON FORD,

Plaintiff, ORD ER A D O PTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION -against- 21-CV-5945 (RER) (SIL) SERGEANT MARK CURATOLO, et al.,

Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------X

RAMÓN E. REYES, JR., United States District Judge:

In a sua sponte report and recommendation dated June 12, 2025, (ECF No. 68 (the “R&R”)), Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke recommended that the Court dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that such dismissal should become with prejudice if Plaintiff fails to appear within 60 days of a final order on this issue. (Id.) Judge Locke advised the parties that they had fourteen days from the date that the R&R was received to file objections. (Id.) To date, neither party has filed an objection to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The Court notes that Ford, who brings this action pro se, may not have received notice of the R&R. (ECF No. 72). “The duty to inform the Court and defendants of any change of address is an obligation that rests with all pro se plaintiffs.” Greene v. Sposato, No. 16-CV-1243 (JMA), 2019 WL 1559421, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. April 9, 2019) (citation omitted). Ford has not done so here—thus, dismissal is appropriate. Id. (“If a pro se litigant fails to keep the Court apprised of his or her current mailing address, the Court may dismiss the action under Rule 41(b) . . . for failure to prosecute.”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error and, finding none, adopts the R&R in its entirety. See Covey v. Simonton, 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). Therefore, it is ordered that the R&R is adopted in its entirety, and this action is dismissed without prejudice. Such dismissal will become with prejudice if Plaintiff does not appear within 60

days of this final order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case subject to reopening upon Plaintiff’s appearance within 60 days.

SO ORDERED. Hon. Ramón E. Reyes, Jr. Digitally signed by Hon. Ramón E. Reyes, Jr. Date: 2025.10.1 0 16:02:02 -04'00' RAMÓN E. REYES, JR. United States District Judge

Dated: October 10, 2025 Brooklyn, New York

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

Related

Covey v. Simonton
481 F. Supp. 2d 224 (E.D. New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Naquon Ford v. Sergeant Mark Curatolo, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naquon-ford-v-sergeant-mark-curatolo-et-al-nyed-2025.