Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 18, 2022

Griffin-Robinson v. Salov

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:20-cv-02712
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil RightsSection 1983Motion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

In Griffin-Robinson v. Salov, Judge Engelmayer granted the motion, dismissing federal claims with prejudice and state claims without prejudice but without leave to amend.

Who this affects

Sonja R. Griffin-Robinson’s federal and state-law claims against Darwin Marrero, Henry Bautista, Marilin Peralta, Jacquelynn Opirhory, Gabriel Cabral, Gregory Ulses, and Richard DiDonato were dismissed as described in the order. The order terminated those seven defendants from the case.

What happened

Sonja R. Griffin-Robinson, who represented herself, claimed that police officers violated her constitutional rights by searching her home, taking her personal property, and arresting her. She brought claims under a federal civil-rights law against several defendants. The pending motion concerned seven defendants identified as the NYPD Defendants: Darwin Marrero, Henry Bautista, Marilin Peralta, Jacquelynn Opirhory, Gabriel Cabral, Gregory Ulses, and Richard DiDonato.

The NYPD Defendants asked the court to dismiss all claims against them, arguing that Griffin-Robinson had not alleged that they personally participated in the claimed violations and that her claims failed for additional reasons. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

In Griffin-Robinson v. Salov, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the recommendation in full and granted the NYPD Defendants’ motion to dismiss. He dismissed Griffin-Robinson’s federal claims against those defendants with prejudice. He dismissed her state-law claims against them without prejudice, but without leave to amend, and directed that the seven defendants be terminated from the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Griffin-Robinson v. Salov · No. 1:20-cv-02712
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Mar. 18, 2022

Background

Sonja R. Griffin-Robinson represented herself in this lawsuit. The court construed her complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state or local officials for violating constitutional rights. She alleged that police officers searched her home, seized her personal property, and arrested her.

The pending motion was filed by Darwin Marrero, Henry Bautista, Marilin Peralta, Jacquelynn Opirhory, Gabriel Cabral, Gregory Ulses, and Richard DiDonato, whom the opinion calls the “NYPD Defendants.” They moved to dismiss all claims against them. They argued that the Second Amended Complaint did not allege their personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations, as required for a claim under Section 1983, and that the claims failed even if personal involvement had been alleged. They also requested dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman recommended granting the motion in its entirety. Her recommendation called for Griffin-Robinson’s claims against the NYPD Defendants to be dismissed with prejudice and her state-law claims against them to be dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend.

No party objected to the recommendation. Judge Engelmayer therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. He found no such error and adopted the recommendation in full.

Ruling

The court granted the NYPD Defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Griffin-Robinson’s federal-law claims against those defendants with prejudice. It also dismissed her state-law claims against them without prejudice, but without leave to amend. The court directed the clerk to close the motion and terminate Marrero, Bautista, Peralta, Opirhory, Cabral, Ulses, and DiDonato as defendants. The opinion states that the case remained under Judge Freeman’s pretrial supervision, indicating that the ruling concerned these defendants and claims rather than necessarily ending every aspect of the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.