Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 28, 2020

McKinney v. NYC Department of Corrections

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:19-cv-05320
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In McKinney v. City of New York, Judge Nathan adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Who this affects

Michael McKinney’s case was dismissed on the defendant’s motion, and the clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or explain the dismissal beyond adopting the separate Report and Recommendation.

What happened

In McKinney v. City of New York, Michael McKinney was the petitioner and the City of New York and others were the respondents. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the defendants’ reasons for seeking dismissal.

Judge Parker issued a report recommending that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. No objections were filed by the deadline, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record.

Judge Alison J. Nathan found no clear error, adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety, and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for the reasons stated in Judge Parker’s report. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail the order and report to McKinney.

The detailed version

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

Case
McKinney v. NYC Department of Corrections · No. 1:19-cv-05320
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
Sept. 28, 2020

Background

The court considered Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation, which recommended granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion itself does not explain the underlying claims or the arguments supporting dismissal; it refers to the separate Report and Recommendation for those reasons.

Review of the Recommendation

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s recommendation. When no timely objections are filed, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The court described clear error as a mistake that leaves it with a definite and firm conviction that an error was made.

No objections to the Report and Recommendation had been filed, and the objection deadline had passed. The court therefore applied clear-error review and found none.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for the reasons provided in Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation. The clerk was directed to mail the order and the Report and Recommendation to the plaintiff and to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.