Auguste v. Department of Corrections
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-00921
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Auguste v. Radlin, Judge Engelmayer granted four attorney defendants’ motions to dismiss Jean R. Auguste, Jr.’s legal-malpractice claims.
Jean R. Auguste, Jr.’s legal-malpractice claims against Devon M. Radlin, Ilissa Brownstein, Samuel C. DePaola, and Sim & DePaola, LLP were dismissed. The court directed the remaining parties to schedule an initial pretrial conference.
What happened
Jean R. Auguste, Jr. v. Devon Radlin et al. included constitutional claims involving the City of New York and state-law legal-malpractice claims against former attorneys Devon M. Radlin, Ilissa Brownstein, Samuel C. DePaola, and Sim & DePaola, LLP. The attorney defendants asked the court to dismiss the malpractice claims because the complaint did not adequately state a claim.
A magistrate judge recommended granting all four motions, finding multiple independent problems with the malpractice allegations against each attorney defendant. Neither side objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation only for obvious error and found none.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the recommendation in full and granted the motions to dismiss filed by Radlin, Brownstein, DePaola, and Sim & DePaola. The court directed the remaining parties to contact the magistrate judge’s chambers to schedule an initial pretrial conference and stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review of the recommendation.
The detailed version
- Auguste v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:24-cv-00921
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 6, 2025
Background
Jean R. Auguste, Jr., representing himself, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the City of New York violated his federal constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island. It also asserted state-law legal-malpractice claims against former attorneys Devon M. Radlin, Ilissa Brownstein, Samuel C. DePaola, and the law firm Sim & DePaola, LLP.
The court had previously dismissed claims against the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Department of Homeless Services because those agencies were not suable entities, while construing the complaint as asserting a claim against the City of New York instead.
Motions and Report
The attorney defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim. Brownstein, DePaola and Sim & DePaola, and Radlin filed separate motions. The court referred the motions to United States Magistrate Judge Gary Stein.
Judge Stein recommended granting all of the attorney defendants’ motions. The recommendation concluded that the complaint failed to plausibly plead legal malpractice against each attorney defendant, identifying multiple independent reasons for each defendant. The parties were given 14 days to file objections, but neither party objected.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake apparent from the record. Judge Engelmayer found no clear error and adopted Judge Stein’s recommendation in its entirety.
The court granted the motions to dismiss filed by Radlin, Brownstein, DePaola, and Sim & DePaola. The opinion does not state that these dismissals were with or without prejudice. The court directed the remaining parties to contact Judge Stein’s chambers by April 4, 2025, to schedule an initial pretrial conference. It also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review of the recommendation.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.