Murphy v. Bracero
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-10855
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Murphy v. Bracero: Judge Roman granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Mark P. Murphy’s federal civil-rights action was dismissed with prejudice after the court granted the defendants’ motion for failure to prosecute. The opinion does not resolve the merits of Murphy’s false-arrest or unlawful-search claims.
What happened
In Murphy v. Bracero, Mark P. Murphy brought claims under a federal civil-rights law alleging false arrest and an unlawful search. He represented himself. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause for pretrial proceedings.
Murphy missed several conferences, did not provide updated contact information, failed to appear for a deposition, did not respond to the dismissal motion, and did not contact the court. Neither side objected to Judge Krause’s recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Judge Nelson S. Roman reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it in full, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Murphy v. Bracero · No. 7:20-cv-10855
- Nelson Roman
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
Mark P. Murphy, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserted claims for false arrest and unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. The defendants moved to dismiss because Murphy failed to prosecute the case.
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause for general pretrial supervision. Murphy appeared at a January 31, 2022 conference and was instructed to provide updated contact information after his expected release from prison. He then failed to appear at multiple later conferences, did not provide updated contact information, failed to appear for a noticed deposition, did not oppose the dismissal motion by the deadline, and did not contact the court. The defendants’ motion papers were returned as undeliverable.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Krause recommended granting the defendants’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case. The parties had until August 4, 2022, to object to the recommendation, but neither party filed objections.
Court’s Analysis
Because there were no objections, Judge Roman reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The court adopted Judge Krause’s recommendation in its entirety. It concluded that dismissal was warranted because Murphy’s failure to prosecute caused a significant delay, he had been warned that continued failures to appear could lead to dismissal, further delay would likely prejudice the defendants, the court’s interest in managing its limited resources outweighed giving Murphy more time, and dismissal was the appropriate sanction. The court also stated that a lesser sanction would not be effective because Murphy had not provided a way for the court to contact him.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and dismissed the action with prejudice. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and the case and to mail the order to Murphy at his last known address on the docket.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.