Kamara v. Midland Credit Management
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-01062
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fatima Kamara v. Midland Credit Management, Judge Ho dismissed the case for failure to prosecute after Kamara did not serve defendant or respond to court orders.
Fatima Kamara’s lawsuit against Midland Credit Management, Inc. was dismissed because she did not complete service or respond to the court’s orders.
What happened
Fatima Kamara sued Midland Credit Management, Inc., claiming violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The court had referred the case for pretrial management and later ordered Kamara to explain why she had not served the summons and complaint within 90 days or provide proof of service.
Kamara did not respond to that order, provide proof of service, or otherwise communicate with the court. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case for failure to prosecute, and Kamara did not object to that recommendation.
Judge Dale E. Ho found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail the order to Kamara, who was representing herself.
The detailed version
- Kamara v. Midland Credit Management · No. 1:25-cv-01062
- Ho
- Oct. 2, 2025
Background
Fatima Kamara brought this action against Midland Credit Management, Inc. under 15 U.S.C. § 1692, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo for general pretrial management and dispositive motions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of the summons and complaint within 90 days. On May 13, 2025, Judge Ricardo ordered Kamara to submit a letter explaining why service had not been completed within that period or, if she believed Midland had been served, to provide proof of service. The order warned that failing to timely show good cause for the failure to serve could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
Kamara did not respond, file proof of service, or otherwise communicate with the court. On August 8, 2025, Judge Ricardo issued a Report and Recommendation advising dismissal for failure to prosecute. Kamara had until August 22, 2025, to object but filed no objections.
Court’s Analysis
When no timely objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews the record for clear error. Judge Ho reviewed the Report and found no error, clear or otherwise. The court stated that Kamara had not prosecuted the case for nearly eight months, had not shown good cause for failing to serve the summons and complaint or provided proof of service, and had not responded to the May 13 order or otherwise communicated with the court.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail a copy of the order to Kamara, who was proceeding without a lawyer. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and it does not decide the merits of Kamara’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act allegations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.