Opinion
21cv13826 (EP) (ESK) 21cv13831 (EP) (ESK) 21cv13832 (EP) (ESK) 21cv13833 (EP) (ESK) 21cv13835 (EP) (ESK)
04-10-2024
KASSIEM MCKINNEY, Plaintiff, v. PASSAIC COUNTY, et al., Defendants. TERRELL FINLEY, Plaintiff, v. PASSAIC COUNTY, et al., Defendants. SAMMY CROMARTIE, Plaintiff, v. PASSAIC COUNTY, et al., Defendants. TARIQ ROCKLACY, Plaintiff, v. PASSAIC COUNTY, et al., Defendants. ZAMAIRE BARDEN, Plaintlff v. PASSAIC COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Evelyn Padin, U.S.D.J.
Pending before the Court is the consolidated report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kiel (“R&R), which recommends that Defendants County of Passaic, Passaic County Sherriff's Office, and Warden Michael Tolerico's (collectively, “Defendants”) motions to dismiss pro se Plaintiffs Kassiem McKinney, Terrell Finley, Sammy Cromartie, Tariq Rocklacy, Barden's (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) separate Complaints for failure to answer interrogatories, provide documents, and execute authorizations be granted. No objections were filed to the R&R. The Court will ADOPT the R&R, GRANT Defendants' motions to dismiss, and DISMISS with prejudice Plaintiffs' separate Complaints.
No longer the assigned magistrate judge.
Kassiem McKinney v. Passaic County, et al., Case No. 21cv13826 (“McKinney”), D.E. 89; Terrell Finley v. Passaic County, et al., Case No. 21cv13831 (“Finley”), D.E. 71; Sammy Cromartie v. Passaic County, et al., Case No. 21cv13832 (“Cromartie”), D.E. 71; Tariq Rocklacy v. Passaic County, et al., Case No. 21cv13833 (“Rocklacy”), D.E. 70; Zamaire Barden v. Passaic County, et al., Case No. 21cv13835 (“Barden”), D.E. 82.
McKinney, D.E. 83; Finley, D.E. 66; Cromartie, D.E. 63; Rocklacy, D.E. 64; Barden, D.E. 76.
McKinney, D.E. 1; Finley, D.E. 1; Cromartie, D.E. 1; Rocklacy, D.E. 1; Barden, D.E. 1.
No oral argument was heard on Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); L.Civ.R. 78.1(b). See R&R at 10.
When a magistrate judge addresses motions that are considered “dispositive,” including motions to dismiss, a magistrate judge will submit a report and recommendation to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; L.Civ.R. 72.1(a)(2). Where no objection has been made to a report and recommendation within 14 days, the district court should, as a matter of good practice, satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record before adopting the report and recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (noting some review should be given to report and recommendation by judges); Peerless Ins. Co. v. Ambi-Rad, Ltd, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22968, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2009). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made in the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); L.Civ.R. 72.1(b)(3). Only if the district court adopts a report and recommendation, does it have the force of law. See United Steelworkers of Am. v. N.J. Zinc Co., 828 F.2d 1001, 1005 (3d Cir. 1987).
The Court makes three notes. First, no objections were filed in response to the R&R. Second, Magistrate Judge Kiel carefully examined each of the applicable Poulis factors in finding that Plaintiffs' separate Complaints should be dismissed. Finally, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the records in each of the five pending cases. Therefore, the R&R will be adopted.
IT IS, on this 10th day of April, 2024;
ORDERED that the R&R is ADOPTED; and it is further
McKinney, D.E. 89; Finley, D.E. 71; Cromartie, D.E. 71; Rocklacy, D.E. 70; Barden, D.E. 82.
ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED; and it is further
McKinney, D.E. 83; Finley, D.E. 66; Cromartie, D.E. 63; Rocklacy, D.E. 64; Barden, D.E. 76.
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' separate Complaints are DISMISSED with prejudice-, and it is further
McKinney, D.E. 1; Finley, D.E. 1; Cromartie, D.E. 1; Rocklacy, D.E. 1; Barden, D.E. 1.
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shal l mark the five pending cases CLOSED; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send by regular mail a copy of this Memorandum Order to Plaintiffs.