Henry v. Davis
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:11-cv-01273
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Henry v. Miller, Judge Engelmayer left the case closed after finding Henry’s objections untimely and identifying no clear error.
Christopher A. Henry and defendants C.O. Miller, C.O. Joseph Grasso, and C.O. Lorenzo Colangelo; the case remained closed, and the court stated that Henry’s untimely objections waived appellate review.
What happened
In Christopher A. Henry v. C.O. Miller, C.O. Joseph Grasso, and C.O. Lorenzo Colangelo, the court had previously adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and ended the case. Henry later sent a letter reporting a new address and objecting to that recommendation.
The court found Henry’s objections were filed too late but reviewed them anyway. The objections repeated his argument that the defendants gave him inadequate notice of his deposition. The court explained that repeated arguments are reviewed only for obvious error and found none.
Judge Engelmayer left the case closed and stated that Henry’s failure to object on time waived appellate review. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Henry.
The detailed version
- Henry v. Davis · No. 1:11-cv-01273
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 14, 2019
Background
On November 8, 2019, the court issued an opinion and order adopting the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman and terminating the case. On November 13, 2019, the court received pro se plaintiff Christopher Henry’s letter reporting his new address and purporting to object to the report and recommendation.
Objections and standard of review
The court held that Henry’s objections were untimely. It nevertheless reviewed them. The court explained that when objections merely repeat arguments previously made, the district court reviews the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court stated that this standard applies even when the plaintiff is representing himself.
Henry’s objections repeated his argument that the defendants gave him insufficient notice of his deposition. Judge Pitman had previously considered and rejected that argument twice. The court also noted that courts generally do not consider new evidence raised for the first time in objections.
Ruling
The court found no clear error in the report and recommendation or in the record. It stated that the case remained closed. The court also reiterated that Henry’s failure to file timely objections waived appellate review. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Henry.
Disposition
The order did not reopen the case. It left in place the prior order terminating the case after finding Henry’s objections untimely and finding no clear error.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.