Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 6, 2020

Hickman v. The Legal Aid Society

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:19-cv-05294
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Hickman v. The Legal Aid Society, Judge Torres granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the federal civil-rights claim with prejudice and state malpractice claim without prejudice.

Who this affects

Quandel Hickman’s federal civil-rights claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 and state malpractice claim were dismissed; the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.

What happened

In Hickman v. The Legal Aid Society, the court considered defendants’ motion to dismiss after receiving no objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. It granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed Hickman’s claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 with prejudice, and dismissed his state malpractice claim without prejudice.

Judge Analisa Torres issued the order on August 6, 2020, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hickman v. The Legal Aid Society · No. 1:19-cv-05294
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Aug. 6, 2020

Background

Quandel Hickman sued The Legal Aid Society and Brittney Rose Curtis. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation addressing that motion.

Court’s Review

No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Judge Analisa Torres reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none. The court adopted the recommendation in its entirety.

Ruling

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Hickman’s claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the opinion bars that claim from being brought again in the same case. His state malpractice claim was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order did not impose that same bar. The opinion does not state the underlying reasons for these dismissals. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.