Murray v. City of New York
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-03758
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Murray v. City of New York, Judge Clarke adopted the recommendation and revoked Murray’s fee-free filing status.
Robert L. Murray’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees was affected; the defendants’ motion to revoke that status was adopted through the court’s adoption of the Report and Recommendation.
What happened
Robert L. Murray, who represented himself, sued the City of New York and other defendants over alleged constitutional violations while he was incarcerated. In Murray v. City of New York, the defendants asked the court to revoke his status allowing him to proceed without paying filing fees.
A magistrate judge recommended granting that request. The recommendation gave the parties 14 days to object, but no objections or request for more time were filed. The court therefore found that Murray had waived his right to object and to obtain appellate review of the recommendation.
The court independently reviewed the papers, adopted the recommendation in full, and revoked Murray’s fee-free filing status. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also directed the clerk to close the defendants’ motion on the docket and mail the order to the person receiving mail for Murray.
The detailed version
- Murray v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-03758
- Clarke
- Apr. 4, 2025
Background
Robert L. Murray filed the action without a lawyer, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated. The court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for general pretrial matters and dispositive motions.
The defendants moved to revoke Murray’s in forma pauperis status. In forma pauperis, or IFP, status allows a person to proceed in a case without paying the usual filing fees. Magistrate Judge Aaron issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be granted.
Review of the Recommendation
The Report and Recommendation gave the parties 14 days after service to file objections and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. No objections or request for an extension had been filed by the date of the order. The court therefore concluded that Murray had waived his right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review of it.
The court nevertheless independently reviewed the motion papers and the Report and Recommendation. It found the recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and revoked Murray’s IFP status. The clerk was directed to terminate the defendants’ motion, listed as ECF No. 37, and mail a copy of the order to Cynthia Turnipseed, whom the opinion says was receiving mail on Murray’s behalf.
This order addressed the fee-free filing status and the recommendation-review process. The opinion does not decide the merits of Murray’s constitutional allegations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.