Christman v. Kalimulina
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-07318
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Christman v. Kalimulina: Judge Gardephe dismissed the case without prejudice after Christman failed to update his address or prosecute it.
The dismissal ended Silviano Christman's case against Dr. Svetlana Kalimulina and the other named defendants, but the dismissal was without prejudice.
What happened
In Christman v. Kalimulina, Silviano Christman, who was representing himself, sued Dr. Svetlana Kalimulina and other defendants under civil-rights and disability laws. The opinion says Christman was incarcerated when he filed the complaint and was required to notify the court of any address change.
Christman did not file the amended complaint authorized by the court and did not provide a current address after court papers were repeatedly returned as undeliverable. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute, and no party objected.
Judge Gardephe reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it in its entirety, and dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Christman v. Kalimulina · No. 1:21-cv-07318
- Paul Gardephe
- July 27, 2023
Background
Silviano Christman, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the civil-rights statute known as Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act against Dr. Svetlana Kalimulina and other named defendants. The complaint was filed on August 31, 2021, while Christman was incarcerated.
The court had repeatedly instructed Christman to notify it in writing if his address changed. The court also gave him 60 days to file an amended complaint stating facts supporting his claims against certain defendants. Christman never filed an amended complaint.
Failure to Prosecute
After the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for general pretrial supervision, multiple court orders and other materials mailed to Christman at the address on file were returned as undeliverable. Defendants reported that, upon information and belief, Christman was no longer in the custody of the Department of Correction after January 21, 2022, but had not updated his contact information. Defendants asked that the case be dismissed because Christman had abandoned it.
Judge Gorenstein directed Christman to provide his current address by December 16, 2022. Christman did not do so. Judge Gorenstein then issued a report and recommendation recommending dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff does not pursue the case.
District Court Review and Disposition
No party objected to the report and recommendation. Judge Gardephe explained that the lack of objections generally waived further judicial review, but he still reviewed the record to determine whether there was any clear error. He found the recommendation thorough, well-reasoned, and free of clear error.
Judge Gardephe adopted Judge Gorenstein’s report and recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Christman at the address on the docket and close the case.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.