Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 28, 2021

Fennell v. McCarthy

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:20-cv-03764
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fennell v. McCarthy, Judge Woods dismissed Fennell’s habeas petition without prejudice after Fennell asked to end it.

Who this affects

Damique Fennell’s § 2254 petition was dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.

What happened

In Fennell v. McCarthy, Damique Fennell asked the court to dismiss his petition challenging his custody under federal habeas law.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice, meaning Fennell could potentially bring it again. No one objected to that recommendation by the deadline.

Judge Gregory H. Woods found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, dismissed Fennell’s petition without prejudice, ended pending motions and deadlines, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fennell v. McCarthy · No. 1:20-cv-03764
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Apr. 28, 2021

Background

Damique Fennell filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By letter dated March 29, 2021, Fennell asked the court to dismiss the petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).

Recommendation and Review

On April 13, 2021, Magistrate Judge Fox recommended that the court dismiss the petition without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). The deadline for objections was April 27, 2021, and the court received none. Judge Woods reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Ruling

The court accepted and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed Fennell’s § 2254 application without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all deadlines, and close the case. The order did not decide the substance of Fennell’s habeas claims.

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.