Henry v. Davis
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:11-cv-01273
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Henry v. Davis, Judge Engelmayer dismissed Christopher Henry’s case for failing to prosecute after repeated missed depositions and ignored court orders.
Christopher A. Henry’s federal civil-rights case was dismissed after the court found that he repeatedly failed to prosecute it and comply with court orders; the defendants obtained dismissal.
What happened
In Henry v. Davis, Christopher Henry, representing himself, sued correctional officers under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that they physically assaulted and injured him at Rikers Island.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case because Henry repeatedly failed to appear for his deposition and did not follow court orders warning that continued failures could lead to dismissal. Henry also missed the deadline to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation and sought another extension after the extended deadline had passed.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer found no clear error in the recommendation, adopted it in full, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Henry v. Davis · No. 1:11-cv-01273
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 8, 2019
Background
Christopher A. Henry, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that several correctional officers at Rikers Island physically assaulted and injured him. The pending motion sought dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The motion followed repeated failures by Henry to appear for his deposition, despite court orders warning that continued failures could result in dismissal of his complaint with prejudice. An earlier motion had been denied without prejudice, but the defendants renewed the motion after Henry continued failing to prosecute the case and disregarding court orders.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman recommended dismissing Henry’s complaint with prejudice. The recommendation stated that objections were due within 14 days. Henry requested an extension after that deadline had passed. The court granted an extension through October 30, 2019, but Henry later requested another two-month extension on November 8, 2019. The court denied that second request, and no objections were filed by the extended deadline.
Court’s Analysis
Because no party filed timely objections, Judge Engelmayer reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious error on the face of the record. After reviewing the recommendation and the record concerning Henry’s repeated failures to prosecute and Judge Pitman’s efforts to obtain compliance, the court found no facial error and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.
The court also stated that the failure to object waived objections and prevented appellate review, based on the warning in the recommendation and cited Second Circuit precedent.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to mail Henry a copy of the decision and close the case. By adopting the recommendation in full, the court adopted the recommendation that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.