From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeBlasio v. Nieves

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 28, 2022
18-CV-9360 (AT) (OTW) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2022)

Opinion

18-CV-9360 (AT) (OTW)

03-28-2022

PHILIP E. DeBLASIO, Plaintiff, v. POLICE OFFICER NIEVES. et al., Defendants.


REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

ONA T. WANG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On March 1, 2021, I issued an order granting a limited appearance pro bono counsel for the pro se Plaintiff. (ECF 72). The Clerk of Court mailed the order to the address on the docket, but this was returned to the Court as undeliverable.

It is Plaintiff's responsibility to keep the Court informed of any change of address or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See, e.g., Laney v. Ramirez, No. 10-CV-9063 (JGK), 2011 WL 6594491, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2011) ("[A] case cannot proceed without a current address for the plaintiff and the failure to maintain such an address with the Court is a ground for failure to prosecute."); Holmes v. State of New York Office of Court Admin., No. 00-CV-7871 (LAP) (AJP), 2001 WL 5035, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2001), report and recommendation adopted ECF 7 (Jan. 25, 2001) (citing cases).

On June 4, 2021, I directed Plaintiff to show cause in writing why I should not recommend dismissing this case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). (ECF 73). The Order was again returned to the Court as undeliverable. Accordingly, I recommend that the action be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days (including weekends and holidays) from receipt of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. A party may respond to any objections within fourteen (14) days after being served. Such objections, and any responses to objections, shall be addressed to the Honorable Analisa Torres, United States District Judge. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Torres.

FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir. 1993); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1988); McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237-38 (2d Cir. 1983).

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this Order on the pro se Plaintiff at the address on the docket.


Summaries of

DeBlasio v. Nieves

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 28, 2022
18-CV-9360 (AT) (OTW) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2022)
Case details for

DeBlasio v. Nieves

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP E. DeBLASIO, Plaintiff, v. POLICE OFFICER NIEVES. et al.…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Mar 28, 2022

Citations

18-CV-9360 (AT) (OTW) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2022)