Newell v. Yakubu
- Sarah Cave
- 1:19-cv-08912
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Newell v. Yakubu, Magistrate Judge Cave recommended dismissal without prejudice after Newell repeatedly failed to provide medical releases or respond.
Daniel Newell’s case against Correction Officer Yakubu was recommended for dismissal without prejudice because Newell did not provide the required medical releases or respond to the court’s order to show cause.
What happened
Daniel Newell sued Correction Officer Yakubu. The court twice ordered Newell to complete and return medical releases, but he did not do so. Yakubu later told the court that he still had not received them.
The court then ordered Newell to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it. Newell did not respond by the deadline.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended dismissing the case without prejudice under the federal rule allowing dismissal for failure to prosecute after notice.
The detailed version
- Newell v. Yakubu · No. 1:19-cv-08912
- Sarah Cave
- May 8, 2020
Background
Daniel Newell brought this action against Correction Officer Yakubu. On December 12, 2019, the court directed Newell to complete and return medical releases to Yakubu by January 9, 2020. Newell did not do so. The court issued another order requiring him to complete and return the releases by March 20, 2020.
On March 31, 2020, Yakubu informed the court that he still had not received Newell’s medical releases. On April 1, 2020, the court issued an order requiring Newell to explain by May 1, 2020, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to actively pursue the case. Newell did not respond.
Ruling
Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute after notifying the plaintiff. The court recommended that this matter be dismissed without prejudice. The opinion is an order recommending dismissal; the text provided does not state that the district court entered a separate final dismissal.
Effect
The recommendation concerned Newell’s failure to comply with the court’s orders and respond to the order to show cause. Because the recommendation was for dismissal without prejudice, the opinion did not state that refiling was barred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.