Calderon v. City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-04631
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Calderon v. City of New York, Judge Caproni’s court granted dismissal and dismissed the pro se plaintiff’s case without prejudice.
The pro se plaintiff, Iason Calderon, and the City of New York and the other defendants named in the case.
What happened
In Calderon v. City of New York, the court adopted a recommended ruling in full and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The judgment concerns the plaintiff’s constitutional claims under Section 1983, a federal civil-rights statute.
The case was dismissed without prejudice because the court stated that the pro se plaintiff might be able to allege additional facts supporting those claims, assuming he had exhausted required administrative remedies. The judgment does not provide the underlying reasons from the court’s July 8 order.
Judge Valerie Caproni’s court stated that appellate review was precluded because neither party objected to the recommended ruling after being warned that failing to object would waive those objections.
The detailed version
- Calderon v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-04631
- Valerie Caproni
- July 9, 2025
Background
The judgment concerns a pro se plaintiff’s constitutional claims against the City of New York and other defendants under Section 1983. The judgment refers to a July 8, 2025 order and a recommended ruling, but the text provided does not state the underlying factual allegations or the specific grounds for dismissal.
Court’s ruling
The court adopted the recommended ruling in full and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed without prejudice. The judgment states that the plaintiff might be able to allege additional facts sufficient to support his Section 1983 constitutional claims, assuming he had exhausted administrative remedies.
Appellate review
The judgment states that appellate review was precluded because neither party objected to the recommended ruling, which had warned that a failure to object timely would waive such objections.
Effect
The dismissal without prejudice did not bar the plaintiff from pursuing the claims again, as reflected in the judgment’s statement that additional allegations might be sufficient. The provided text does not specify the deadlines or procedures for any further filing.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.