Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Mar. 6, 2024

Murray v. Dabo

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-04026
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Summary JudgmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Murray v. Dabo, Judge Caproni adopted the recommendation, granted Defendants’ summary-judgment motion, denied permission to proceed without paying appeal fees, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Robert Murray, as Leviticus Lucifer, received judgment against him; Defendants Sidiki Dabo and Eguagie Ehimwenma prevailed on their summary-judgment motion. The case was closed, and Plaintiff was denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.

What happened

In Murray v. Dabo, the court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The opinion provided no details about the underlying claims or the recommendation’s reasoning.

The court said Plaintiff filed no written objections, and the recommendation warned that failing to object could waive appellate review. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The case was closed.

Judge Valerie Caproni’s ruling therefore resolved the case in Defendants’ favor and denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed without paying appeal fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Murray v. Dabo · No. 1:22-cv-04026
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Mar. 6, 2024

Ruling

The court adopted in full the report and recommendation referred to as the “R&R,” and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision that resolves a case when the court determines that the law and undisputed record require judgment for one side; the judgment here was for Defendants.

Objections and appeal-related rulings

The court stated that Plaintiff filed no written objections to the R&R, which had warned that failing to file timely objections could result in waiver of those objections. The court therefore stated that appellate review of the decision was precluded. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition

The case was closed. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims or explain the R&R’s reasoning beyond adopting it in full. Judge Valerie Caproni is identified in the supplied case information; the judgment itself is signed by the clerk of court.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.