Lee v. Carter
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-08629
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lee v. Carter, Judge Engelmayer dismissed Michael J. Lee’s constitutional-rights case without prejudice because he failed to prosecute it.
Michael J. Lee’s claims against four New York City Department of Corrections officials were dismissed without prejudice; the case was closed.
What happened
In Lee v. Carter, pro se plaintiff Michael J. Lee sued four New York City Department of Corrections officials under a federal civil-rights law, alleging constitutional-rights violations. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal because Lee failed to prosecute the case or, alternatively, because his complaint lacked a legally sufficient claim.
Lee had not filed anything in the case since October 29, 2021, and had not updated his address. No party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, so the district court reviewed it for obvious error. The recommendation identified three possible grounds: failure to prosecute, lack of jurisdiction because Lee had not completed required administrative steps, and failure to state a claim.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the recommendation to dismiss for failure to prosecute and dismissed all claims without prejudice. He did not rule on the other proposed grounds for dismissal. The court directed the Clerk to mail Lee the decision, close pending motions, and close the case; the failure to object also waived appellate review.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Carter · No. 1:21-cv-08629
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 12, 2022
Background
Pro se plaintiff Michael J. Lee brought this action against four New York City Department of Corrections officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The court incorporated the factual summary in a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation rather than repeating those facts in the opinion.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal on three alternative grounds:
- Failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b): Lee had not actively pursued the case.
- Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1): The Report concluded that Lee had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
- Failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6): The Report also concluded that the complaint did not state a legally sufficient claim.
Court’s analysis
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed the unobjected-to portions for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found the Report’s analysis of all three possible grounds persuasive and found no facial or legal error.
The court nevertheless chose to dismiss under Rule 41(b), based on Lee’s longstanding failure to prosecute. The opinion specifically noted that Lee had not made any filing since October 29, 2021, and had not updated his address. Because the court relied on failure to prosecute, it stated that it had no occasion to act on the alternative grounds involving exhaustion and failure to state a claim.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the recommendation to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The court dismissed without prejudice all claims in the matter. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Lee a copy of the decision at the address on file, close all pending motions, and close the case. The court also held that the parties’ failure to object, after the Report warned that objections were required within fourteen days, waived appellate review.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.