Rodriguez v. Burke
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-02715
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Andres Rodriguez v. Mark Miller, Judge Garnett granted the motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s petition as untimely.
The ruling dismissed Andres Rodriguez’s petition as untimely and closed the case; the opinion identifies Mark Miller as the respondent.
What happened
In Andres Rodriguez v. Mark Miller, Andres Rodriguez challenged the dismissal of his petition. Rodriguez was representing himself and was incarcerated.
The court had referred a pending motion to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky, who issued a report and recommendation. No one filed objections within the deadline, and the court found no obvious error in the record.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett adopted the report and recommendation in full, granted the motion to dismiss the petition as untimely, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Burke · No. 1:24-cv-02715
- Garnett
- Mar. 6, 2025
Background
Andres Rodriguez filed a petition against Mark Miller. The opinion states that Rodriguez was incarcerated and representing himself. It does not identify the petition’s specific legal basis or claims.
Report and Recommendation
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky for a report and recommendation concerning a motion filed at Dkt. No. 20. Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky issued the report and recommendation on February 7, 2025. The report explained that any objections had to be filed by February 21, 2025.
Rodriguez did not file objections. Because he was representing himself and incarcerated, the court waited about two additional weeks before ruling to allow for potentially late objections. When no timely objections are filed, the court may adopt a report and recommendation if the record shows no clear error. The court reviewed the record and the report and found no clear error.
The court noted one minor clerical error in the report’s procedural history: it listed Rodriguez’s first opposition to the motion to dismiss as filed on September 22, 2024, although the filing was actually made on September 6, 2024. The court stated that this error did not affect the substance of the report.
Ruling
Judge Margaret M. Garnett adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. For the reasons stated in that report, the court granted the motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. The clerk was directed to terminate Dkt. No. 20 and close the case. The opinion does not state that the court reached the underlying merits of the petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.