Urena v. City of New York
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-01189
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Urena v. City of New York: Judge Rearden granted Defendants’ summary-judgment motion after finding no clear error in the recommendation.
Amaury Urena’s claims against the City of New York and the individual defendants were ended when the court granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion and closed the case.
What happened
In Urena v. City of New York, Amaury Urena, who represented himself, sued the City and several correctional officials. He claimed excessive force, inadequate medical care, due process violations, inadequate training and supervision, and municipal responsibility under a federal civil-rights law.
The defendants asked for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule because the evidence does not show a genuine dispute requiring a trial. Urena did not oppose the motion or object to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker’s recommendation that the motion be granted and all claims be dismissed. The recommendation stated that Urena had not completed the required administrative process.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden adopted the recommendation in full, finding no clear error after Urena failed to object. She granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, directed the clerk to close the case, and terminated the pending motions.
The detailed version
- Urena v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01189
- Rearden
- Mar. 29, 2025
Background
Amaury Urena, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, Captain Pines, Captain Clarke, Captain Chmut, Captain Johnson, Correctional Officer Gordon, and two defendants identified as Jane Doe. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and municipal-liability claims under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The claims concerned alleged excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, due process violations, failure to train and supervise, and municipal liability.
The defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial when the record does not show a genuine dispute requiring one. The defendants served the motion on Urena, including a second copy after he said he had not received the first. Urena did not file an opposition or ask for more time.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a Report and Recommendation on December 26, 2024, recommending that the motion be granted and all claims be dismissed. The recommendation stated that Urena had not exhausted his administrative remedies—the required grievance or complaint process—and that those remedies had become unavailable after he had ample opportunity to use them.
The recommendation warned that objections had to be filed within the specified periods and that failing to object would waive review of the recommendation on appeal. Urena filed no objections and did not request an extension. The opinion also notes that Urena had agreed to withdraw his claims against Captain Johnson, and that the docket did not show service on Captain Chmut or Correctional Officer Gordon. It states that the claims against those two defendants were not viable for the same administrative-remedies reason.
Court’s Ruling
Because no objections were filed, Judge Rearden reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues. The court found no clear error and described the recommendation as well reasoned and supported by the facts and law. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.