Blackman v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-07119
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Damon Blackman v. Rasheed “Ralo” Harrison, Judge Woods dismissed the action without prejudice because Blackman failed to prosecute after a clear warning.
Damon Blackman’s claims against the remaining defendant, Rasheed “Ralo” Harrison, were dismissed without prejudice because Blackman failed to prosecute the case. The case was closed, and the underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
Damon Blackman v. Rasheed “Ralo” Harrison concerned Blackman’s failure to take steps to litigate his remaining claims against Harrison. The court had previously ordered Blackman to provide an update or voluntarily dismiss the case by September 11, 2020.
Blackman did not respond or take meaningful action after that order. The court explained that federal rules allow dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or follow a court order, and that the court could dismiss the case on its own.
Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, adjourn deadlines, close the case, and serve the order on Blackman by certified mail.
The detailed version
- Blackman v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-07119
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 22, 2020
Background
The opinion’s caption identifies Damon Blackman, also known as Dame Grease and doing business as Damon Blackmon Music, as the plaintiff and Rasheed “Ralo” Harrison as the defendant. The court stated that the remaining defendants had not appeared and that Blackman had not prosecuted the case since February 19, 2020.
On September 2, 2020, the court ordered Blackman to submit a letter explaining how he proposed to litigate the case or to voluntarily dismiss it by September 11, 2020. The court warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Blackman took no action after that order.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with the rules or a court order. The court explained that a district court may issue this type of dismissal on its own, even without a defendant’s motion. It also described five considerations: the length of the plaintiff’s failures, notice that delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendant, the need to manage the court’s docket while protecting due process, and whether a lesser sanction would work.
Ruling
The court found that Blackman had received a clear warning, had failed to take meaningful steps against Harrison, and had demonstrated disinterest in prosecuting his claims. It concluded that allowing the case to remain pending would be unfair to other litigants and that no lesser sanction would be effective.
Judge Gregory H. Woods therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all deadlines, close the case, and serve the order on Blackman by certified mail. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims.
Effect of the ruling
The case was closed, but the dismissal was expressly without prejudice. The opinion does not state whether Blackman later refiled or describe the merits of his claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.