Daniels v. City of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:18-cv-03717
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Deshawn Daniel v. City of New York, Judge Abrams dismissed Daniel’s claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) after adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Deshawn Daniel’s claims against the City of New York were dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Deshawn Daniel v. City of New York, a magistrate judge recommended dismissing Deshawn Daniel’s claims without prejudice. Daniel was proceeding without a lawyer, and a mailed copy of the recommendation was returned as undeliverable.
Neither side filed objections. The district court reviewed the record for clear error and found none, noting that Daniel had previously been warned that his claims could be dismissed if he did not attend certain hearings.
Judge Ronnie Abrams adopted the recommendation in full and ordered that Daniel’s claims be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The court directed the clerk to close the case and mail Daniel a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Daniels v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-03717
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
The court considered Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s March 25, 2022 Report and Recommendation. It recommended dismissing Deshawn Daniel’s claims without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which allows a court to dismiss an action on specified terms. The opinion states that Daniel was proceeding without a lawyer.
Notice and objections
A copy of the Report and Recommendation was mailed to Daniel at the address on file, which his former counsel had provided as Daniel’s last-known address. The mailing was returned as undeliverable on April 7, 2022. The court noted that the Report described earlier notices warning Daniel that his claims could be dismissed if he failed to attend certain hearings, and that Daniel had told his former counsel he would not attend at least one of those hearings. Neither party filed objections.
Ruling
Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the record for clear error. Finding none, Judge Ronnie Abrams adopted Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court ordered that Daniel’s claims be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), directed the clerk to close the case, and directed the clerk to mail Daniel a copy of the order. The court also stated that the choice not to file written objections waived appellate review of the decision.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.