Tamarez v. Hochul
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-10678
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tamarez v. Hochul, Judge Woods adopted the recommendation, granted Defendants’ dismissal motions, denied appeal-related IFP status, and closed the case.
Madelyn Tamarez’s case was dismissed, judgment was entered for Kathleen Hochul and the other defendants, and Tamarez was denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
Madelyn Tamarez sued Kathleen Hochul and other defendants. The court considered a report and recommendation and the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The court found no clear error in the report and recommendation and adopted it in full. It granted the motions to dismiss and entered judgment for the defendants.
Judge Gregory Woods’s order also denied fee-free appeal status because the court found an appeal would not be in good faith. The case was closed.
The detailed version
- Tamarez v. Hochul · No. 1:21-cv-10678
- Gregory Woods
- July 17, 2023
Background
Madelyn Tamarez brought this case against Kathleen Hochul and other defendants. The court’s judgment refers to an earlier report and recommendation (an appointed judicial officer’s proposed findings and ruling) and to motions to dismiss. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims or the reasons supporting dismissal; it refers to the report and recommendation for those reasons.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record, and found none. It therefore accepted and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.
Ruling
The court granted the motions to dismiss. It entered judgment for the defendants and closed the case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, so it denied Tamarez fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.