Smith v. Annucci
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-01715
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Smith v. Annucci, Judge Abrams dismissed Mary Doe’s claims for failing to pursue them after she did not respond to court orders.
Mary Doe’s claims were dismissed. The opinion does not state how this order affected Jane Smith’s claims.
What happened
In Smith v. Annucci, Magistrate Judge Wang ordered Mary Doe to explain why her claims should not be dismissed for failing to pursue the case. Doe did not respond, and her attorneys said they had been unable to contact or locate her since about April 11, 2022.
Judge Wang recommended dismissing Doe’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or follow court orders. No one objected to that recommendation.
Judge Ronnie Abrams reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it in full, and dismissed Mary Doe’s claims. The order does not state a disposition of Jane Smith’s claims.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Annucci · No. 1:21-cv-01715
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 21, 2023
Background
The court addressed only Mary Doe’s claims. On June 21, 2023, Magistrate Judge Wang ordered Doe to show why her claims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Doe did not respond. The order states that Doe had repeatedly failed to reply to court orders and that her attorneys had been unable to contact or locate her since about April 11, 2022.
Report and recommendation
On August 3, 2023, Judge Wang issued a report and recommendation advising that Doe’s claims be dismissed under Rule 41(b). No objections were filed. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record or reasoning.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams found no error and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court dismissed Mary Doe’s claims. The opinion does not state a disposition of Jane Smith’s claims and does not specify whether the dismissal permits or bars refiling.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.