Jenkins v. NYCHA
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-10364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Arlene Jenkins v. NYCHA, Judge Torres adopted the recommendation, granted NYCHA’s dismissal motion, and dismissed Jenkins’s claims without prejudice.
Arlene Jenkins’s claims were dismissed without prejudice after NYCHA’s motion to dismiss was granted. Jenkins could move for leave to amend by November 14, 2022. The order does not specify the ruling’s effect on Defendant John Doe.
What happened
In Arlene Jenkins v. NYCHA, the court considered a recommendation from Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker concerning NYCHA’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
No party objected to the recommendation. The court reviewed it for clear error and found none, then adopted it in full.
Judge Analisa Torres granted NYCHA’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. The order allowed Arlene Jenkins to move for permission to amend her complaint by November 14, 2022, and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to her because she was representing herself.
The detailed version
- Jenkins v. NYCHA · No. 1:21-cv-10364
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 31, 2022
Background
The order concerns Defendant New York City Housing Authority’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Arlene Jenkins’s complaint. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a Report and Recommendation addressing the motion.
Court’s Review
The district court stated that it had received no objections to the Report and Recommendation. It reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none. The court therefore adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres granted NYCHA’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The order states that Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling or amendment as stated in the order. Jenkins was permitted to move for leave to amend her complaint by November 14, 2022. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and mail the order to Jenkins pro se, meaning without a lawyer. The opinion does not explain the underlying basis for the dismissal or specify the effect of the ruling on Defendant John Doe.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.