Minus v. New York City Police Department
- Jesse Furman
- 1:17-cv-04623
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Minus v. NYPD, Judge Furman dismissed the case after Omar Minus failed to appear for trial, finding failure to prosecute.
Omar Minus’s remaining claim was dismissed after he failed to appear for trial; judgment was entered for Officer Brian Benvenuto and Officer Jospeh Tennariello, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Minus v. New York City Police Department, Omar Minus did not appear for his scheduled trial at 9:30 a.m. on February 10, 2022.
The court had repeatedly warned Minus, including at the final pretrial conference two days earlier, that failing to appear could lead to dismissal of his remaining claim for failure to prosecute or abandonment.
Judge Furman dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute, entered judgment for Officer Brian Benvenuto and Officer Jospeh Tennariello, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Minus v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:17-cv-04623
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 10, 2022
Background
The judgment states that Omar Minus failed to appear at his scheduled trial at 9:30 a.m. on February 10, 2022. The court had repeatedly warned him that failing to appear could result in dismissal of his remaining claim for failure to prosecute or abandonment. The judgment specifically notes that he received this warning in person at the final pretrial conference on February 8, 2022.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff does not move the case forward. The court entered judgment in favor of Officer Brian Benvenuto and Officer Jospeh Tennariello, and the case was closed. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Effect
Omar Minus’s remaining claim was dismissed, and the individual defendants received judgment in their favor. The judgment does not describe the underlying claim or explain any decision on its merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.