Dresch v. New York City Police Department
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-01693
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Dresch v. New York City Police Department, Judge Engelmayer granted New York City’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
Stephen Dresch and the City of New York were directly affected by the ruling; the court granted the City’s motion, closed the case, and directed that a copy be mailed to Dresch.
What happened
Stephen Dresch, representing himself, sued the New York City Police Department, the City of New York, and several unidentified defendants. The Police Department had already been dismissed, and the City later asked to dismiss the case because Dresch had not pursued it.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the City’s motion. No party objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record.
Judge Engelmayer adopted the recommendation and granted the City of New York’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. He directed the clerk to close the motion and the case and mail Dresch a copy of the decision.
The detailed version
- Dresch v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:19-cv-01693
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 5, 2020
Background
Stephen Dresch, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, filed this case against the New York City Police Department, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, and the City of New York. The court had dismissed the New York City Police Department on March 21, 2019. The City of New York then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended granting the City’s motion. Her report stated that there was no indication Dresch wished to continue litigating and that the circumstances were sufficiently extreme to justify dismissal. The court incorporated the report’s factual summary by reference rather than repeating it in this opinion.
Court’s Review
Because no party objected to the report, the court reviewed it for clear error. That standard asks whether the record shows an obvious mistake. The court found no facial error in the report’s conclusions and adopted it in its entirety. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review of those objections, based on the notice in the report and the cited appellate decisions.
Ruling
The court granted the City of New York’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. It directed the clerk to close the motion at docket 25, close the case, and mail a copy of the decision to Dresch at the address on file. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.