Francis v. City of New York

Background

The defendants moved to dismiss Hopeton K. Francis’s complaint. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Robyn J. Tarnofsky, who issued a Report and Recommendation on October 10, 2025. The recommendation advised granting the motion to dismiss but giving Francis an opportunity to file a further amended complaint addressing the problems identified in the recommendation.

Objections and review

The Report and Recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. Judge Tarnofsky later extended Francis’s deadline to November 18, 2025, because of concerns about whether he had been properly served. No objections or extension request was filed. The court therefore found that Francis had waived the right to object and to obtain appellate review of the recommendation.

Even without objections, the court reviewed the motion papers and the recommendation. It found the recommendation well reasoned, supported by the facts and law, and appropriately attentive to Francis’s status as a self-represented litigant. The opinion does not state the specific claims or pleading defects discussed in the recommendation.

Ruling

Judge Margaret M. Garnett adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. Francis was allowed to submit a second amended complaint if he can address the problems identified in the recommendation. The court explained that the second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints and should include all allegations Francis wants considered.

The court deferred the deadline for the second amended complaint to Judge Tarnofsky. It also noted a legal-assistance clinic for self-represented civil litigants, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion docket entry, and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Francis.