Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 1, 2020

Jessamy v. City Mount Vernon

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:18-cv-11826
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Jessamy v. City of Mount Vernon, Judge Karas granted a failure-to-prosecute motion and dismissed Turhan F. Jessamy’s federal civil-rights claims with prejudice.

Who this affects

Turhan F. Jessamy’s claims against the City of Mount Vernon and the other defendants were dismissed with prejudice, ending the case.

What happened

In Jessamy v. City of Mount Vernon, Turhan F. Jessamy, representing himself, brought claims under a federal civil-rights law alleging excessive force, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment.

Jessamy did not attend three court-ordered conferences, did not provide updated contact information, and did not respond to defendants’ document requests and written questions. He also did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the case be dismissed.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in its entirety, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and dismissed Jessamy’s claims with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jessamy v. City Mount Vernon · No. 7:18-cv-11826
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Apr. 1, 2020

Background

Turhan F. Jessamy, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of Mount Vernon and other defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged excessive force, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment. The court referred the case for pretrial supervision, and the case was consolidated for discovery with another matter arising from the same facts.

The opinion states that Jessamy failed to attend three court-ordered status conferences. He also failed to provide updated and accurate contact information, did not respond to defendants’ document demands and interrogatories, and otherwise failed to advance the litigation. The defendants moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.

Report and recommendation

Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith recommended that the court grant defendants’ motion and dismiss the case with prejudice. The recommendation notified Jessamy that objections were due within 17 days and that failing to object could limit later appellate review. The recommendation was mailed to two addresses associated with Jessamy. No objections were filed.

Court’s review and ruling

Because no objections were filed, Judge Karas reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record. He found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in its entirety. The court stated that dismissal with prejudice was warranted because Jessamy had failed to attend three conferences and had not advanced the litigation despite being aware of his obligations.

The court granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. It dismissed Jessamy’s claims against the defendants with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the case, and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Jessamy.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.