Washington v. Matiuta

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01422
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- X : JERMAINE WASHINGTON, : Plaintiff, : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – against – : 25-CV-1422 (AMD) (CLP) : IOANA M. MATIUTA, SGT. KEITH WEBER, JANE DOE, :

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

A NN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:

On March 11, 2025, the pro se plaintiff brough t this action against three New York Police

Department officers, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights

during a traffic stop and subsequent detention. (ECF No. 1.) On March 28, 2025, Magistrate

Judge Joseph A. Marutollo ordered the plaintiff to serv e the complaint on the defendants by June 9, 2025. (ECF No. 8.) When the plaintiff did not app ear at the initial conference on May 20, 2025, Judge Marutollo ordered him to file a letter explaining his failure to attend by June 5, 2026. (ECF Order dated May 20, 2025.) On June 6, 2025, Judge Marutollo sua sponte extended the plaintiff’s deadline to file the letter, and cautioned him that the Court might dismiss his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) if he did not serve the defendants. (ECF Order dated June 6, 2025.) On June 10, 2025, the plaintiff moved for an extension of time to serve the defendants. (ECF No. 9.) Judge Marutollo granted the motion, and directed the plaintiff to serve the defendants by August 8, 2025. (ECF Order dated June 10, 2025.) On August 11, 2025, Magistrate Judge Clay Kaminsky1 ordered the plaintiff to explain by August 20, 2025 why he had not served the defendants. (ECF Order dated August 11, 2025.) Judge Kaminsky warned the plaintiff that failure to respond to the order may result in a recommendation to dismiss the action. (Id.) In a September 15, 2025 report and

recommendation, Judge Kaminsky recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) because the plaintiff had “neither served the complaint within the specified time nor shown good cause for his failure to do so.” (ECF Order dated September 15, 2025.) To date, the plaintiff has not served the defendants or otherwise communicated with the Court. No party has filed an objection to the report and recommendation and the time for doing so has passed. A district court reviewing a report and recommendation “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). To accept a report and recommendation to which no timely objection has been

made, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” VOX Amplification Ltd. v. Meussdorffer, 50 F. Supp. 3d 355, 369 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Kaminsky’s well-reasoned report and recommendation for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court adopts the report and recommendation in its entirety. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

1 The case was reassigned to Judge Kaminsky on July 31, 2025. (ECF Order dated July 31, 2025.) SO ORDERED. s/Ann M. Donnelly ___________________________ ANN M. DONNELLY United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York October 9, 2025