Brock v. The City of New York

Background

Pro se plaintiff Mandela Brock brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by state actors. He alleged that defendants mistreated him while he stayed at temporary housing facilities. The amended complaint named the City of New York and several City employees, Acacia Network and employees Daniel Reyes, Tatiana Cave, and Donnell Burt, Services for the Underserved and several employees, and unidentified John and Jane Doe defendants. The opinion states that Acacia Network and Services for the Underserved operate homeless shelters in New York City.

The court had previously dismissed Brock’s claims against Jane Doe Kong, John Doe Vicar, and Jane Doe Vasquez as frivolous. It later granted the City’s motion to dismiss. The remaining defendants were the Acacia Defendants, the Services Defendants, and the Doe Defendants.

Motions and Report and Recommendation

The Services Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The Acacia Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), which permits judgment based on the parties’ pleadings when the pleadings show that a party is entitled to judgment.

The court referred both motions to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein. Brock did not file an opposition to either motion. Although he submitted a letter objecting to a motion for summary judgment, the opinion states that he did not oppose the pending motions. The court had granted multiple extensions and warned Brock that failing to respond could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Judge Gorenstein recommended granting both pending motions. He noted that the case could also have been dismissed for failure to prosecute but chose to address the motions on their merits. No party filed objections to the recommendation.

District Court’s Review and Ruling

Because no party objected after receiving notice of the consequences, the parties generally waived further judicial review of the recommendation. The district court nevertheless reviewed the record for clear error—an obvious mistake apparent from the record—and found none.

The court adopted Judge Gorenstein’s recommendation, granted the Services Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and granted the Acacia Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court also dismissed Brock’s claims against the Doe Defendants. The provided opinion text is partially corrupted in the passage explaining that dismissal, so the precise reasoning for that part is not fully clear. The court terminated all remaining defendants and closed the case.