Vazquez v. City of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-01573
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vazquez v. City of New York, Judge Engelmayer granted the City and Dana Roth’s motion to dismiss but left the case against unserved defendants pending.
The City of New York and Dana Roth obtained dismissal of the motion addressed to them. The case continued against the remaining defendants, who had not yet been served.
What happened
In Vazquez v. City of New York, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The opinion does not repeat the underlying facts, instead adopting the recommendation’s factual summary.
No party objected to the recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record, and found none. It granted the City of New York and Dana Roth’s motion to dismiss and did not dismiss the case against the remaining defendants, who had not yet been served.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the recommendation in its entirety. The case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo for general pretrial supervision, including handling service issues involving the remaining defendants.
The detailed version
- Vazquez v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-01573
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 11, 2022
Background
The pending motion was filed by Dana Roth and the City of New York. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo issued a Report and Recommendation advising the court to grant those defendants’ motion to dismiss, while declining to dismiss the amended complaint against the other defendants because they had not yet been served. The opinion incorporates the Report’s summary of the facts rather than providing a separate factual account.
Review of the Recommendation
Because no party objected to the Report and Recommendation, the court reviewed the unchallenged portions for clear error—an obvious mistake on the face of the record. The court found no such error and adopted the Report in its entirety. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review, based on the notice in the Report that objections had to be filed within 14 days.
Ruling
The court granted the City of New York’s and Roth’s motion to dismiss. It adopted Judge Figueredo’s recommendation not to dismiss the case against the remaining defendants. The case, including management of service issues involving those defendants, remained referred to Judge Figueredo for general pretrial supervision. The opinion does not state the claims’ legal basis or specify whether the dismissal permits or bars refiling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.