Kirby v. Carter
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-09056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kirby v. Carter, Judge Torres granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Termain Kirby’s claims without prejudice.
Termain Kirby’s claims were dismissed without prejudice; the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
Kirby v. Carter concerns claims Termain Kirby brought under a federal civil-rights law against several New York City Department of Correction defendants.
The defendants moved to dismiss Kirby’s amended complaint. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion and dismissing the claims without prejudice. No one objected to that recommendation.
Judge Analisa Torres found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed Kirby’s claims without prejudice. The court also directed the Clerk to close the motion and mail the order to Kirby, who was representing himself.
The detailed version
- Kirby v. Carter · No. 1:21-cv-09056
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 28, 2022
Background
The case began when claims by Termain Kirby were separated from an earlier action. Kirby later filed an amended complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the named defendants, who were identified as New York City Department of Correction personnel.
Procedural History
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court referred that motion to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, who issued a Report and Recommendation on December 9, 2022. The recommendation advised that the motion be granted and Kirby’s claims be dismissed without prejudice. No objections were filed.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The court adopted the recommendation in its entirety, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed Kirby’s claims without prejudice. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and mail a copy of the order to Kirby, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.