EVANS v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DR. NEIL C. EVANS, et al. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-00356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Dr. Neil C. Evans v. United States District Court, Judge Broderick adopted the recommendation, dismissed the action with prejudice, and denied appeal-related fee status.
The parties to the action, including Dr. Neil C. Evans, et al., and the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, are affected by the dismissal and case closure. Any attempted appellant is affected by the denial of permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.
What happened
In Dr. Neil C. Evans v. United States District Court, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Netburn’s Report and Recommendation in full. The judgment does not include the recommendation’s reasoning.
The court dismissed the action with prejudice and closed the case. It also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
Judge Vernon Broderick entered the judgment on September 25, 2025. The supplied judgment does not explain the underlying claims or the reasons for dismissal.
The detailed version
- EVANS v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · No. 1:24-cv-00356
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 25, 2025
Ruling
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Netburn’s Report and Recommendation in full. The judgment refers to a separate Opinion and Order dated September 25, 2025, but that Opinion and Order is not included in the provided text.
The action was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the required fees for purposes of an appeal.
Scope of the Provided Text
The judgment does not identify the claims, explain the basis for dismissal, or describe the Report and Recommendation’s analysis. The classification therefore reflects the judgment’s disposition rather than a determination that the court reached the underlying merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.