Dinkins v. Gustave
- John Cronan
- 1:19-cv-02336
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dinkins v. City of New York, Judge Cronan ordered service of case documents and gave Shaquille Dinkins seventeen days to respond.
Shaquille Dinkins, who was given seventeen days to object and respond after receiving the documents; the defendants, whose objections were to be served on him; and the Clerk of Court, who was directed to mail the materials and record service.
What happened
In Dinkins v. City of New York, the defendants told the court that Shaquille Dinkins may have a new address after being released from custody. They also sent the court an unredacted portion of Dinkins’s deposition.
The court noted that the docket did not show that Dinkins had been mailed a magistrate judge’s report recommending a decision on the defendants’ summary-judgment motion or the defendants’ objections to that report.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the Clerk of Court to mail those documents and the order to Dinkins. He gave Dinkins seventeen days after service to object to the report and respond to the defendants’ objections, warning that missing the deadline would waive those matters for appeal.
The detailed version
- Dinkins v. Gustave · No. 1:19-cv-02336
- John Cronan
- Feb. 18, 2022
Background
The defendants notified the court that they had learned that Shaquille Dinkins had updated his address in a separate Southern District of New York action after his release from custody. They stated, based on information and belief, that his current address might be 80 Schenectady Avenue, Apartment 4B, Brooklyn, New York 11213. The defendants also sent the judge an unredacted excerpt of pages 50–51 of Dinkins’s deposition, in which he identified his most recent address before his incarceration.
The docket did not show that the January 12, 2022 report and recommendation on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, or the defendants’ objections to that report, had been mailed to Dinkins at either address.
Order
Judge Cronan ordered that Dinkins have seventeen days after service of the order, the report and recommendation, and the defendants’ objections to do two things: file written objections to the report and recommendation under federal law and court rules, and respond to the defendants’ objections. The order stated that any extension requests had to be addressed to Judge Cronan and that failing to file timely objections or responses would waive them for purposes of appeal.
The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Dinkins a copy of the order, the January 12 report and recommendation, and the defendants’ objections at the stated Brooklyn address, and to record service on the docket. This order addressed service and filing deadlines; it did not decide the defendants’ summary-judgment motion or the merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.