McBryde-O'Neal v. Polichetti
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-10113
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McBryde-O'Neal v. Polichetti, Judge Cronan ordered Polichetti to serve his objection or file proof that McBryde-O'Neal had received it.
Laverne A. McBryde-O'Neal, whose opportunity to object or seek appellate review was described as waived, and Defendant Dino Polichetti, who was ordered to serve his objection or file proof of service.
What happened
In McBryde-O'Neal v. Polichetti, the court addressed the next steps after a judge's recommendation concerning the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
McBryde-O'Neal did not object to the recommendation within the required time, so the court said she waived the right to object or seek appellate review. Defendant Polichetti did file a timely objection, but the docket did not show whether McBryde-O'Neal had received it.
Judge Cronan ordered Polichetti by February 21, 2025, either to serve McBryde-O'Neal with the objection and accompanying declaration and file proof of service, or to file proof if service had already occurred.
The detailed version
- McBryde-O'Neal v. Polichetti · No. 1:23-cv-10113
- John Cronan
- Feb. 20, 2025
Background
The case is an action brought by Laverne A. McBryde-O'Neal against Task Force Officer Dinol Polichetti and other defendants. The opinion states that Robyn F. Tarnofsky, who had been assigned general supervision of pretrial proceedings and motions that could resolve the case, issued a report and recommendation on January 30, 2025, concerning the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The recommendation gave the parties fourteen days after service to file objections and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. McBryde-O'Neal did not file objections within that period. The court therefore stated that she had waived the right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review.
Polichetti filed a timely objection on February 13, 2025. Under the applicable federal rule, another party may respond within fourteen days after receiving an objection. But the docket did not show whether McBryde-O'Neal had been served, so the court could not determine when her response deadline would expire.
Order
The court ordered Polichetti, by February 21, 2025, to do one of two things: serve McBryde-O'Neal with his objection and accompanying declaration and file proof of service on the docket, or, if service had already occurred, file proof of service on the docket.
This order did not decide the defendants' motion to dismiss or adopt or reject the report and recommendation. It addressed service and the deadline for any response to Polichetti's objection.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.