Seth v. The City of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-01960
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Seth v. The City of New York, Judge Nathan dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and denied fee-free appeal status.
The dismissal directly affected Shaquan M. Seth and ended his action against the City of New York and the other defendants. The order also denied fee-free status for any appeal.
What happened
In Seth v. The City of New York, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the action with prejudice because the plaintiff had not prosecuted it. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The deadline for objections to the recommendation was December 23, 2019, but no objections were filed. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full.
Judge Nathan dismissed the action with prejudice, denied fee-free appeal status because an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Seth v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-01960
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
The court considered a report and recommendation from Judge Aaron recommending dismissal of the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or the conduct supporting the failure-to-prosecute recommendation.
Review of the Recommendation
Objections to the recommendation were due by December 23, 2019. No objections had been filed by the date of the order. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. It also found under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff fee-free appeal status. The Clerk was directed to close the case. The court also directed that a copy of the order be mailed and emailed to the plaintiff because earlier mailings had been returned.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.