Davis v. Horton
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-00885
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Davis v. Horton, Judge Cronan dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and the property-damage claim without prejudice.
Andre Jamel Davis's federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, while his state-law property-damage claim was dismissed without prejudice. The defendant officers were affected by the termination of the case.
What happened
In Davis v. Horton, Andre Jamel Davis, representing himself, sued various New York City Police Department officers over conduct during a traffic stop. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case because the amended complaint did not adequately state a claim.
No party objected to that recommendation before the deadline. The court nevertheless reviewed it independently and agreed with its conclusions. It adopted the recommendation as to the federal claims and dismissed those claims with prejudice.
Judge Cronan declined to decide the remaining state-law property-damage claim and dismissed it without prejudice because the federal claims had been dismissed. The court terminated the case and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Horton · No. 1:23-cv-00885
- John Cronan
- Feb. 18, 2025
Background
Andre Jamel Davis, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action against various New York City Police Department officers. The claims arose from conduct during a traffic stop. Davis's amended complaint included federal-law claims and a state-law claim for property damage.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo issued a Report and Recommendation on January 27, 2025. She recommended dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Report and Recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object would waive the right to object.
Review of the Recommendation
No objections were filed, and the objection period expired. The court stated that the parties therefore waived their right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review. Despite that waiver, the court conducted an independent review of the Report and Recommendation and found it well reasoned and well founded.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation as to Davis's federal-law claims and dismissed those claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed—over Davis's remaining state-law claim for property damage. It dismissed that claim without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the case.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The order was signed by Judge John P. Cronan on February 18, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.