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

Docket
1:19-cv-05294
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Motion to DismissCivil ProcedureSection 1983Tort
In one sentence

In Hickman v. The Legal Aid Society, the court granted dismissal, ending Hickman’s § 1983 claim with prejudice and malpractice claim without prejudice.

Who this affects

Quandell Hickman’s § 1983 claim was dismissed with prejudice, while his state malpractice claim was dismissed without prejudice. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.

What happened

Quandell Hickman sued The Legal Aid Society and Brittney Rose Curtis, asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a state malpractice claim.

After receiving no objections to the recommended decision, the court reviewed it for clear error and found none. The court adopted the recommendation in full, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the § 1983 claim with prejudice, and dismissed the state malpractice claim without prejudice.

The opinion does not name the judge; the court entered judgment on August 6, 2020.

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
Date
Aug. 6, 2020

Background

Quandell Hickman brought claims against The Legal Aid Society and Brittney Rose Curtis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under state malpractice law. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Report and Recommendation

The magistrate judge’s June 26, 2020 Report and Recommendation recommended resolving the defendants’ motion. The opinion states that Hickman filed no objections. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning it checked whether the recommendation contained an obvious mistake, and found none.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Hickman’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with prejudice and dismissed his state malpractice claim without prejudice. The opinion does not provide the specific reasons for those dismissals; it refers to the Report and Recommendation for those reasons.

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.