Jules v. Chesner
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-05008
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jules v. Chesner, Judge Caproni adopted the recommendation, granted defendants’ dismissal motion, denied permission to proceed without paying court costs on appeal, and closed the case.
Evita Jules, the plaintiff, whose case was closed after the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied permission to proceed without paying court costs for an appeal; the defendants prevailed on the motion.
What happened
In Jules v. Chesner, Evita Jules sued Cosmetic and Reconstruction Dentistry, Dr. Michael Chesner, and Dr. Robert B. Vogel. The judgment refers to an earlier report and recommendation and a motion to dismiss, but the provided text does not explain the underlying claims or arguments.
The court adopted the report and recommendation in full and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The judgment states that Jules did not file adequate and specific objections after receiving a warning, which prevents appellate review of the decision. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying court costs for an appeal and stated that the case was closed.
Judge Valerie Caproni was identified as the judge, although the judgment was entered by the clerk of court. The provided judgment does not include the reasons for dismissal; it refers to a separate memorandum opinion and order dated March 6, 2020.
The detailed version
- Jules v. Chesner · No. 1:19-cv-05008
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 9, 2020
Background
The provided document is a judgment in Evita Jules’s case against Cosmetic and Reconstruction Dentistry, Dr. Michael Chesner, and Dr. Robert B. Vogel. It does not describe the claims, the parties’ arguments, or the reasons for the dismissal. Instead, it incorporates the reasons stated in a separate memorandum opinion and order dated March 6, 2020.
Ruling
The judgment states that the court adopted the report and recommendation in full and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. A report and recommendation is a recommendation by a judicial officer for the district judge to adopt or reject. The judgment does not specify which dismissal rule was used or whether the dismissal addressed the merits of any claim.
The court also stated that Jules’s failure to file adequate and specific objections to the report and recommendation precluded appellate review. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying court costs for purposes of an appeal. The judgment states that the case was closed.
What the Provided Text Does Not Show
The provided judgment does not state the underlying legal basis for the claims, the specific grounds for dismissal, or whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. It refers readers to the March 6 memorandum opinion and order for those reasons.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.