Summary
adopting report and recommendation dismissing the plaintiffs' action for failure to prosecute after the issuance of multiple Court Orders advising counsel that failure to proceed would result in dismissal
Summary of this case from Gavin v. Suffolk Cnty. Sheriff's OfficeOpinion
04-CV-5321(JS)(AKT)
01-14-2014
ANGEL FELICIANO, SABRINA LACY, CHRISTOPHER OLUJOBI, DOLORES BROWN, and LESLIE SCOTT, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK; RICHARD DORMER, Suffolk County Police Commissioner; JOHN DOES #1-40, being Suffolk County Police Officers who stopped or Searched Plaintiffs; and JOHN DOES #41-50, being unidentified ranking Police Officers who supervised John Does #1-40, Defendants.
For Plaintiffs: Emmanuel Roy, Esq. Kenechukwu Chudi Okoli, Esq. K.C. Okoli, Attorney at Law For Defendants: Elaine M. Barraga, Esq. Leonard G. Kapsalis, Esq. Suffolk County Attorney's Office
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiffs:
Emmanuel Roy, Esq.
Kenechukwu Chudi Okoli, Esq.
K.C. Okoli, Attorney at Law
For Defendants:
Elaine M. Barraga, Esq.
Leonard G. Kapsalis, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney's Office
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Currently pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), issued on December 16, 2013 recommending that the case be dismissed. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS this R&R in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
The Court presumes familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, which are detailed in Judge Tomlinson's R&R. Briefly, plaintiffs Angel Feliciano, Sabrina Lacy, Christopher Olujobi, Dolores Brown, and Leslie Scott, for themselves and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated (collectively "Plaintiffs") commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 in 2004 alleging that Suffolk County and various other defendants (collectively "Defendants") engaged in a pattern and practice of race-based traffic stops, searches, wrongful detentions, false imprisonment, and other harassment of non-white motorists.
After extensive discovery and years of litigation, the parties discussed the possibility of amending the Complaint with Judge Tomlinson. (See R&R at 2.) Following motion practice, Judge Tomlinson directed Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint by April 5, 2013. (See R&R at 2; Memo. & Order dated 3/28/13, Docket Entry 99.) Plaintiffs' counsel failed to timely file an Amended Complaint and, thereafter, sought various extensions of the time to submit a Joint Pre-Trial Order ("JPTO"). (See R&R at 2-3.)
In requesting these extensions, Plaintiffs' counsel stated that he was unable to reach plaintiff Christopher Olujobi, the "only client whose case survived the last decision of the Court." (R&R at 3 (quoting Ltr. dated 8/13/13 of K.C. Okoli, Docket Entry 102).) Ultimately, Judge Tomlinson granted several requests for an extension of time to file the JPTO as well as a thirty-day stay to allow counsel to locate his client. (See R&R at 3-4.) In an electronic Order dated October 18, 2013, Judge Tomlinson warned that if Plaintiff was not prepared to proceed by November 12, 2013, the case would be dismissed.
Plaintiffs' counsel failed to communicate with the Court by November 12, and on November 25, 2013 defense counsel requested that the action be dismissed. (Docket Entry 105.)
Judge Tomlinson recommends that Defendants' request be granted "based on Plaintiffs [sic] failure to comply with this Court's Orders and the apparent abandonment of this action." (R&R at 5 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b)).)
DISCUSSION
In reviewing an R&R, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If no timely objections have been made, the "court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, the R&R specifically provided that objections were due within fourteen days of service. (R&R at 5.) The R&R was served on December 26, 2013. (Docket Entry 107.) No party has objected and the Court finds the R&R to be correct, comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free of any clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS it in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Judge Tomlinson's R&R is ADOPTED in its entirety;
2. Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED and the Clerk of the Court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.
__________
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated: January 14, 2014
Central Islip, NY