Pantoja v. Enciso
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:18-cv-11842
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pantoja v. Enciso, Judge Engelmayer adopted the recommendation and granted defendants’ motion, closing the case.
The ruling ended the case brought by pro se plaintiffs Raphael M. Pantoja, Rachel M. Pantoja, and Rafael M. Pantoja against Javier Enciso and Herman Quay by granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment.
What happened
Pantoja v. Enciso involved pro se plaintiffs’ claims arising from Rafael M. Pantoja’s incarceration and Rachel M. Pantoja’s interactions with probation officer Javier Enciso.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the claims or, alternatively, enter summary judgment. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, and no party objected.
Judge Engelmayer found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Pantoja v. Enciso · No. 1:18-cv-11842
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
On December 17, 2018, pro se plaintiffs Raphael M. Pantoja, Rachel M. Pantoja, and Rafael M. Pantoja brought claims arising from Rafael M. Pantoja’s incarceration at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn and Rachel M. Pantoja’s interactions with defendant probation officer Javier Enciso. The defendants were Javier Enciso and Herman Quay.
Motion and Recommendation
The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the alternative, they moved for summary judgment under Rule 56. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended granting the defendants’ motion.
Court’s Review
Because no party objected to the Report and Recommendation, the court reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record. The court stated that its review of the report revealed no facial error and adopted the report in its entirety. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived objections and precluded appellate review, as described in the report.
Ruling
Judge Engelmayer granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The order directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion and close the case. The opinion text does not state the specific grounds discussed in the adopted Report and Recommendation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.