Torres v. NYC Police Department

Background

Wilfredo Torres brought this action under the First and Fourth Amendments and the federal civil-rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He initially sued several defendants, and later added NYU Hospitals Center, identified in the pleadings as NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases. Torres’s claims against NYU arose from back surgery at the hospital on April 26, 2016, and the hospital’s response when he chose to discharge himself on April 28, 2016, one day earlier than scheduled. Torres proceeded without a lawyer.

NYU moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Magistrate Judge Fox recommended granting the motion. The recommendation concluded that the complaint did not allege facts linking NYU to events at Torres’s apartment or elsewhere after he left the hospital. It also concluded that the complaint did not provide a basis to find that NYU was acting under government authority during the alleged constitutional violations. The recommendation further found that Torres had not plausibly stated claims under state law for negligence, medical malpractice, or false imprisonment, and that reliance on employer responsibility for an employee’s conduct did not cure those defects. It recommended denying Torres another opportunity to amend.

Objections and review

Torres filed objections that referred generally to all five recommendations issued in the action. He asserted that he was on a federal government terrorism list and that certain incidents were part of domestic assassination programs. Apart from acknowledging that the recommendation supported granting NYU’s motion, he did not address the recommendation’s analysis of his claims against NYU.

Judge Abrams explained that specific objections receive fresh review, while general or conclusory objections are reviewed only for clear error. The court found that Torres’s objections were not specific or clearly directed at the magistrate judge’s conclusions. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

Court’s ruling

Judge Abrams concluded that the recommendation was free of clear error in resolving Torres’s federal civil-rights and state-law claims against NYU. The court also agreed that amendment should not be allowed because Torres had already been given an opportunity to amend and still had not offered plausible allegations that NYU was a government actor or was directly involved in and responsible for the alleged unlawful conduct on April 28, 2016.

The court adopted the recommendation in its entirety, granted NYU’s motion to dismiss, and denied Torres another opportunity to amend. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 253 and close the action as to NYU. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.