Williams v. Dudley
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-11018
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. Dudley, Judge Cronan adopted a recommendation dismissing Williams’s claims with prejudice, denied fee-free appeal status, and closed the case.
Isaac J. Williams’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed. Jacqueline Dudley and the other defendants received judgment in their favor. Williams was also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Isaac J. Williams v. Jacqueline Dudley et al. involves Williams’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the claims with prejudice and without permission to amend the complaint.
Williams did not object to that recommendation within the required time. Instead, he filed a motion asking the court to appoint a lawyer, which Judge Tarnofsky denied. Williams did not object to that denial either.
Judge John P. Cronan reviewed the recommendation in full and adopted it. The court entered judgment for the defendants, denied Williams permission to appeal without paying filing fees, directed the clerk to close a motion and the case, and dismissed the claims with prejudice and without leave to amend.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Dudley · No. 1:23-cv-11018
- John Cronan
- Oct. 7, 2025
Background
Isaac J. Williams brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky for pretrial supervision and recommendations on motions that could dispose of the case.
On September 4, 2025, Judge Tarnofsky issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Williams’s claims be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. The recommendation explained that the parties had fourteen days to object. Williams did not file objections within that period.
Motion to Appoint Counsel
Rather than object to the Report and Recommendation, Williams filed a motion to appoint counsel on September 16, 2025. Judge Tarnofsky denied that motion on September 18, 2025. Williams did not object to that denial, and Judge Cronan found that the denial was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because no timely objections were filed, the parties waived their right to object to the Report and Recommendation or obtain appellate review. Despite that waiver, Judge Cronan stated that he reviewed the recommendation from the beginning, found it well reasoned and well founded, and adopted it in its entirety.
The court therefore dismissed Williams’s claims with prejudice and without leave to amend, entered judgment in favor of the defendants, directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 46, and directed the clerk to close the case. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The opinion does not reproduce the Report and Recommendation’s reasoning or specify in this order the precise basis for dismissing the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.