Marquez v. Silver
- Andrew Carter
- 1:18-cv-07315
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Marquez v. Silver, Judge Carter adopted a sanctions recommendation and granted defendants’ motion seeking dismissal with prejudice as a sanction after Alexis Marquez missed objection deadlines.
Alexis Marquez’s case was dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for violations of discovery and other pretrial orders. The ruling terminated the case against Silver and the other defendants without deciding the underlying civil-rights and human-rights allegations on their merits.
What happened
Alexis Marquez, an attorney representing herself, brought Marquez v. Silver alleging violations of federal civil-rights law and New York State and City human-rights laws. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case with prejudice as a sanction for Marquez’s violations of discovery and other pretrial orders.
Marquez received several extensions to object to that recommendation, including a final deadline of January 25, 2023, which she agreed to. She did not file objections by that deadline or afterward. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation only for clear error, rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in its entirety, and granted defendants’ motion seeking dismissal with prejudice as a sanction. The clerk was directed to terminate the case, and the court stated that the parties had waived further appellate review by failing to object timely.
The detailed version
- Marquez v. Silver · No. 1:18-cv-07315
- Andrew Carter
- Feb. 17, 2023
Background
Alexis Marquez, an attorney proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action against Silver and other defendants. The opinion states that she alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The district court had referred general pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement. Defendants moved for sanctions. Judge Gorenstein issued an amended report and recommendation on September 6, 2022, recommending that defendants’ motion for dismissal with prejudice as a sanction be granted.
Objections and standard of review
Marquez was given fourteen days to object to the report and recommendation and was notified that failing to object could waive further review. She requested and received multiple extensions. After she missed the resulting deadlines, defendants asked the court to set a final deadline. With Marquez’s agreement, the court directed her to file objections by January 25, 2023, and told her that this would be the final extension.
Marquez still did not file objections. She later stated that she was close to completing them and intended to file an additional request for more time, but the opinion states that she never filed the objections. Because there were no timely objections, the district court reviewed the report for clear error. That means the court looked for an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s recommendation rather than conducting the full review required for properly presented objections.
Court’s analysis
Judge Gorenstein concluded that Marquez had violated court orders, including discovery and other pretrial orders. He determined that dismissal was authorized under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f), 37(b), and 41(b), and that the factors under each rule supported the severe sanction of dismissal.
The district court stated that Marquez had more than four months to object, received multiple extensions, and had clear notice of the consequences of failing to object. It also stated that the failure-to-object rule applied to people representing themselves, while noting that Marquez was an attorney and therefore was not entitled to the special consideration sometimes given to self-represented parties.
Disposition
The court found no clear error in the amended report and recommendation and adopted it in its entirety as the court’s opinion. Defendants’ motion for the sanction of dismissal with prejudice was granted. The clerk was directed to terminate the case. The court also stated that the parties had waived any right to further appellate review by failing to object timely.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.