Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 10, 2025

Cordero v. United Airlines, Inc.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:23-cv-08583
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Cordero v. United Airlines, Judge Cronan dismissed the baggage-loss case with prejudice after Cordero failed to participate in discovery.

Who this affects

Denyse Cordero and United Airlines, Inc.; the case was dismissed with prejudice, and permission to appeal without paying the filing fee was denied.

What happened

In Cordero v. United Airlines, Inc., Denyse Cordero alleged that United Airlines, Inc. lost her baggage.

Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo recommended dismissing the case because Cordero did not participate in discovery. No party objected to that recommendation before the deadline.

Judge John P. Cronan adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case with prejudice. He also denied Cordero permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cordero v. United Airlines, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08583
Judge
John Cronan
Date
June 10, 2025

Background

Denyse Cordero brought this action alleging that United Airlines, Inc. lost her baggage.

Report and Recommendation

The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo for general supervision of pretrial proceedings and dispositive motions. On May 20, 2025, Judge Ricardo issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the case be dismissed with prejudice because Cordero had failed to participate in the discovery process.

The recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days after service to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. No objections were filed, and the deadline passed. The court therefore stated that the parties had waived their right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review. Although no objections were filed, the court conducted a de novo review, meaning an independent review, and found the recommendation well reasoned and supported.

Ruling

Judge John P. Cronan adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.