Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 14, 2022

Colon v. Department of Corrections

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:20-cv-10130
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Judge Cronan dismissed Colon v. Department of Corrections without prejudice because Colon failed to prosecute, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

Who this affects

Parris Colon’s lawsuit against the Department of Corrections and the other defendants was dismissed without prejudice; the court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

What happened

Parris Colon sued the Department of Corrections and others under a federal civil-rights law, claiming violations of his rights to equal protection and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Colon was representing himself.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Colon failed to prosecute it. The recommendation was mailed to Colon’s last known address but returned as undeliverable, and the defendants said they did not know another address and could not reach him. No party objected within the allowed time.

Judge John P. Cronan reviewed the recommendation and adopted it in its entirety. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Colon v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-10130
Judge
John Cronan
Date
June 14, 2022

Background

Parris Colon brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection and his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Colon was appearing without a lawyer.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, who was assigned general supervision of pretrial proceedings, recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days after service to object and warned that failing to object would waive the right to challenge the recommendation.

The recommendation was mailed to Colon’s last known address, but the mailing was returned as undeliverable. The defendants told the court that they knew of no other address for Colon and had repeatedly tried to call him without success. The court said these circumstances supported dismissal for failure to prosecute. No objections were filed before the deadline expired.

Ruling

Despite the lack of objections, the court reviewed the recommendation from the beginning rather than applying only a clear-error review. Judge John P. Cronan found the recommendation well reasoned and its conclusions well founded, adopted it in its entirety, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The court also stated that the parties had waived the right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review by failing to file timely objections.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.