Torres v. NYC Police Department

Background

Wilfredo Torres, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under Section 1983 alleging violations of the First and Fourth Amendments. His claims against Bellevue South Associates L.P. arose from an alleged September 28, 2015 search or raid at his apartment. The opinion states that, after Torres did not respond to multiple attempts to contact him, Bellevue building staff opened the apartment door at the direction of New York City Police Department officers. The opinion identifies Bellevue as Torres’s landlord.

Bellevue moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a ruling entered when the record shows no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Fox recommended granting Bellevue’s motion. The recommendation treated Bellevue’s factual statement as admitted because Torres’s response was deficient. It concluded that Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show an injury caused by a state actor or by a private party acting under color of state law—that is, acting with the authority or conduct legally attributable to the government.

The recommendation found no genuine dispute that Bellevue was a private entity and was not acting under color of state law when its staff opened Torres’s door at the officers’ direction. It also found that Torres had not presented evidence showing Bellevue was a willing participant in the officers’ conduct, rather than relying on speculation.

Objections and Review

Torres timely objected. His letter addressed five recommendations issued in the action and repeated assertions that he was on a federal government terrorism list and that the September 28, 2015 incident was part of domestic assassination programs. Apart from noting that the recommendation favored Bellevue, the letter did not specifically challenge the recommendation’s factual findings or legal conclusion. It also incorrectly referred to Bellevue’s motion as a motion to dismiss.

Because the objections were general and repeated earlier arguments, Judge Abrams reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues. The court concluded that the recommendation was free of clear error.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted Bellevue South Associates L.P.’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 191 and close the action as to Bellevue. The opinion does not rule on the claims against the other defendants.