Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 29, 2020

Murray v. The City of New York and the New York City Health + Hospitals

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:19-cv-01959
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Dexter Murray v. Patricia Middleton, Judge Engelmayer granted NYCHA’s and the City’s dismissal motions and required Murray to say whether he would continue against Middleton.

Who this affects

Dexter Murray’s claims against the New York City Housing Authority and the City of New York were dismissed with prejudice. His claims against Patricia Middleton were not dismissed in this order; the court required him to state whether he intended to pursue them and said it would otherwise dismiss them without prejudice.

What happened

Dexter Murray’s case against Patricia Middleton, the New York City Housing Authority, and the City of New York came before the court after the Housing Authority and the City asked to dismiss the claims against them.

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended granting both motions and dismissing the claims against the Housing Authority and the City with prejudice. She also recommended giving Murray until August 10, 2020, to say whether he wanted to pursue his claims against Middleton, who had not been served.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted those recommendations in full. He granted both dismissal motions in their entirety, dismissed the claims against the Housing Authority and the City with prejudice, and directed Murray to notify the court about Middleton; otherwise, the court said it would dismiss the claims against Middleton without prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Murray v. The City of New York and the New York City Health + Hospitals · No. 1:19-cv-01959
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
July 29, 2020

Background

Dexter Murray brought this case against Patricia Middleton, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), and the City of New York. NYCHA and the City filed motions to dismiss. The opinion refers to the magistrate judge’s report for the factual background but does not itself describe the underlying claims.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

The case had been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for general pretrial management and to resolve the dismissal motions. Judge Cave’s amended report recommended that the court grant NYCHA’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the claims against NYCHA with prejudice; grant the City’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the claims against the City with prejudice; and give Murray until August 10, 2020, to notify the court whether he intended to pursue his claims against Middleton. Middleton had not yet been served. The recommendation stated that, if Murray did not respond affirmatively, the claims against Middleton should be dismissed without prejudice.

District Court’s Review

No party objected to the amended report. Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendations for clear error, meaning an obvious error on the face of the record. The court found none and adopted the amended report in its entirety. The court also stated that Murray’s failure to object waived appellate review of the recommendations.

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted NYCHA’s motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed the claims against NYCHA with prejudice. He also granted the City’s motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed the claims against the City with prejudice. The court directed Murray to inform it in writing by August 10, 2020, whether he intended to pursue his claim against Middleton. The court stated that, if it did not receive an affirmative response by that date, it would dismiss the claims against Middleton without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the two motions and mail Murray a copy of the order.

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.