Muhammad v. Hernandez
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-03220
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Muhammad v. Hernandez: Judge Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice because Muhammad failed to prosecute it.
The dismissal affected Isaiah A. Muhammad’s action against Captain Hernandez and the other named defendants.
What happened
In Muhammad v. Hernandez, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended dismissing the action without prejudice because of failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
No party timely objected to the recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Oetken adopted the recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. He directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Muhammad v. Hernandez · No. 1:20-cv-03220
- James Oetken
- Jan. 26, 2022
Background
On August 3, 2021, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Court’s Review
No party filed a timely objection. When there is no timely objection, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. Judge Oetken found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Cave’s Report.
Ruling
Judge Oetken fully adopted the Report and Recommendation. The action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.