Bell v. Intergen Health Management
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-07338
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Bell v. Intergen Health Management was dismissed without prejudice for untimely service; Judge Cronan adopted the recommendation.
James Bell’s amended complaint against Intergen Health Management was dismissed without prejudice; the court’s ruling ended this case without deciding the underlying discrimination allegations.
What happened
In Bell v. Intergen Health Management, James Bell alleged that a home attendant failed to return to his residence after he said he was Black, discriminating against him and violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Bell did not provide a street address where Intergen could be served. The Marshals Service’s attempt to serve Intergen was unsuccessful, and Bell did not provide another address, object to the recommended dismissal, or request more time to complete service.
Judge John P. Cronan found no clear error in the recommendation and adopted it in full. The court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice under the rule requiring timely service and directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Bell v. Intergen Health Management · No. 1:22-cv-07338
- John Cronan
- May 2, 2023
Background
James Bell alleged that a home attendant, presumably employed by Intergen Health Management, failed to return to his residence after he told her he was Black. He claimed this was racial discrimination and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bell filed an initial complaint without a signature and later submitted a signed form complaint that the court treated as an amended complaint. The opinion identifies Bell as proceeding without a lawyer.
Service Efforts
Neither complaint gave an actual street address for Intergen. Court staff identified an address through online research, but the Marshals Service could not successfully serve Intergen there. The magistrate judge ordered Bell to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve Intergen on time or to provide another service address. The docket showed that Bell did not make the required filing, provide another address, or request an extension of time.
Report and Recommendation
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. The recommendation advised the parties that they had 14 days to object. Bell filed no objection, so Judge Cronan reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Cronan found no clear error. More than 90 days had passed since both the original and amended complaints were filed, and the record did not show that Intergen had been served. The court also explained that, although people proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees may in some circumstances receive additional time when relying on the Marshals Service, Bell had not asked for an extension despite being told to do so. The court did not decide whether Bell’s discrimination or disability claims were legally valid.
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and closed the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.