Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 8, 2020

Jules v. Chesner

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-05008
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Motion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jules v. Chesner, Judge Caproni adopted the recommendation, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and closed the case.

Who this affects

The ruling affects Evita Jules and the defendants—Cosmetic and Reconstruction Dentistry, Dr. Michael Chesner, D.D.S., and Dr. Robert B. Vogel, D.D.S., PLLC—because the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted and the case was closed.

What happened

In Jules v. Chesner, the court adopted a report and recommendation concerning the defendants’ motion to dismiss Evita Jules’s case.

The judgment states that Jules did not file adequate and specific objections to the report and recommendation, after receiving sufficient warning about the need to do so.

Judge Valerie Caproni’s order granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, adopted the report and recommendation in full, and stated that Jules’s failure to object prevented appellate review; the case was closed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jules v. Chesner · No. 1:19-cv-05008
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 8, 2020

Background

The judgment concerns Evita Jules’s case against Cosmetic and Reconstruction Dentistry, Dr. Michael Chesner, D.D.S., and Dr. Robert B. Vogel, D.D.S., PLLC. The judgment refers to a memorandum opinion and order dated January 7, 2020, and to a report and recommendation (a magistrate judge’s recommendation to the district court), but those documents are not included in the provided text.

Ruling

The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The judgment states that the report and recommendation gave the parties adequate warning and that Jules’s failure to file adequate and specific objections precluded appellate review of the decision. The court ordered that the case be closed. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.