Newman v. Park
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-06829
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Maurice Newman v. Molly Park, Judge Cronan dismissed all claims against Park and New York City and one claim against Ham, leaving two Ham claims pending.
Maurice Newman’s claims against Molly Park and the City of New York were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. His procedural due process claim against Kirsis Ham was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, while his substantive due process and retaliation claims against Ham remain pending.
What happened
Maurice Newman v. Molly Park et al. is a case brought without a lawyer by Maurice Newman against Molly Park, the City of New York, and Kirsis Ham. Newman alleged that the defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights and retaliated against him.
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis recommended dismissing all claims against Park and the City and dismissing Newman’s procedural due process claim against Ham. No party objected to the recommendation before the deadline.
Judge John P. Cronan adopted the recommendation in full. He dismissed all claims against Park and the City with prejudice and without leave to amend, and dismissed the procedural due process claim against Ham with prejudice and without leave to amend. Newman’s substantive due process and retaliation claims against Ham remain pending; the court directed him to seek a Certificate of Default by September 2, 2026 if he wants to pursue them.
The detailed version
- Newman v. Park · No. 1:24-cv-06829
- John Cronan
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Maurice Newman, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Molly Park, the City of New York, and Kirsis Ham. The opinion describes Park as the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services and its Human Resources Administration. Newman alleged violations of procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and retaliation.
Ham was served but did not appear or answer the complaint. The court had previously explained that it could dismiss a claim against a defendant who had not appeared when the basis for dismissal applied to all defendants and the plaintiff had received notice and a full opportunity to present the claim.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued a Report and Recommendation on July 24, 2026. It recommended that the court fully dismiss the amended complaint against Park and the City without leave to amend and dismiss Newman’s procedural due process claim against Ham. The recommendation advised the parties that objections were due within fourteen days and warned that failing to object could waive the right to object and prevent appellate review.
No objections were filed, and the objection period expired. Although the parties had waived their right to object and obtain appellate review, the court stated that it independently reviewed the recommendation under the more demanding standard that applies when objections are made.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. All claims against Park and the City were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Newman’s procedural due process claim against Ham was also dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.
The court stated that Newman’s substantive due process and retaliation claims against Ham remain live. If Newman wishes to pursue those claims, he must seek a Certificate of Default under Local Civil Rule 55.1 by September 2, 2026. The court also denied without prejudice as moot Newman’s follow-on motions against the City, closed Docket Numbers 69, 87, and 98, and terminated Park and the City from the docket.
The excerpt does not state the specific legal basis for dismissing the claims. This summary therefore describes the procedural disposition ordered by the court without attributing an unstated reason for the dismissals.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.