Recant v. Day
- Tanofsky
- 1:24-cv-04117
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Robin Recant v. Sargent Day, Magistrate Judge Tanofsky recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Recant neither served defendants nor pursued it.
Robin Recant and the 72 defendants she named; the recommendation would dismiss the action without prejudice if adopted by Judge Jennifer H. Rearden.
What happened
Robin Recant filed a lawsuit naming 72 defendants and asserting numerous federal constitutional claims. She also sought an order requiring various defendants to provide records, pay alleged unpaid wages, and take other actions. Recant represented herself without a lawyer.
Recant did not obtain summonses or serve any defendant within the required period. The court repeatedly extended her deadlines and warned that the case could be dismissed. Although she later applied to proceed without paying court fees, she did not provide the requested financial information, serve the defendants, request another extension, or otherwise take steps to move the case forward.
Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tanofsky recommended that Judge Jennifer H. Rearden dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to serve the defendants and failure to prosecute. This was a recommendation, not the district judge’s final ruling, and the report gave the parties 14 days to object.
The detailed version
- Recant v. Day · No. 1:24-cv-04117
- Tanofsky
- Oct. 1, 2025
Background
Robin Recant filed a complaint on May 24, 2024, naming 72 defendants and alleging numerous claims, including violations of federal constitutional rights. She also moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Among other requests, she sought access to records, restrictions on certain defendants’ conduct, removal from an NYPD “mental illness profile list,” payment of alleged unpaid wages, and reimbursement of costs and fees.
Recant was proceeding without a lawyer. The court stated that she did not request summonses for any defendant and did not serve any defendant by the August 24, 2024 deadline. The court issued several orders giving her additional opportunities to request an extension based on good cause, support her application to proceed without paying court fees, or serve the defendants. The court repeatedly warned that failing to act could lead to dismissal.
Recant initially paid the filing and administrative fees after her first application to proceed without paying court fees was denied. After a March 2025 conference, the court allowed her to renew that application because she said her financial circumstances had changed and she could not afford process servers. She filed applications on April 14 and May 9, 2025, but the court found missing or inconsistent financial information and directed her to provide additional explanations and proof. Recant did not provide the required materials, serve the defendants, request another extension, or make any other filing after May 9, 2025.
Legal standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of the complaint within 90 days after filing. If service is not timely made after notice to the plaintiff, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice or set another deadline; if the plaintiff shows good cause, the court must extend the service period for an appropriate time.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move a case forward. The court may take that action on its own initiative. The report considered five factors: the length of the plaintiff’s delay, whether the plaintiff was warned that further delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendants, the court’s need to manage its docket while protecting the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective.
The report also discussed a Second Circuit decision stating that, when dismissal for failure to prosecute could make claims untimely, the court must find willfulness, bad faith, or reasonably serious fault. The report concluded that Recant’s repeated failures to respond to orders showed at least reasonably serious fault.
Discussion and recommendation
Judge Tanofsky concluded that all five factors favored dismissal. Recant had not served any of the 72 defendants more than 15 months after filing the case, had received multiple deadline extensions and warnings, and had not taken steps to prosecute the case after May 9, 2025. The report stated that prejudice to defendants could be presumed from unreasonable delay, that keeping the case on the docket would burden the court, and that lesser sanctions were unlikely to make Recant pursue the case.
The report noted that some alleged events occurred between 2002 and 2019 and that possible claims based on those events may already have been untimely. It also noted that some alleged events occurred in 2024 and might not have been time-barred after a dismissal. The report nevertheless found that Recant’s repeated failures constituted reasonably serious fault, if not willfulness.
Judge Tanofsky recommended that Judge Rearden dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rules 4(m) and 41(b). The document is a report and recommendation rather than a final district-court order. It stated that the parties had 14 days after service to file written objections and that failing to object would waive objections and preclude appellate review.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.