From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rao v. City of N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dec 20, 2016
14-CV-7422 (RRM)(LB) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2016)

Opinion

14-CV-7422 (RRM)(LB)

12-20-2016

KISHOR KUMAR RAO and POORNIMA KISHOR, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DETECTIVE KEVIN WARMHOLD, POLICE OFFICER YISEL CABRERA, DETECTIVE MICHAEL RISO, DETECTIVE JOHN GRIDLEY, and POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE #1-10, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On April 5, 2016 - approximately one month prior to the end of discovery - plaintiffs Kishor Kumar Rao ("Rao") and Poornima Kishor ("Kishor") moved to amend their complaint for a third time. Plaintiffs sought to add a municipal liability claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Rao's arrest was made "using [an] identification card[ ] ("I-cards") in lieu of attempting to obtain [an] arrest warrant[ ]," in violation of his constitutional rights. (Pls.' 4/5/16 Ltr. (Doc. No. 41) at 1.) On April 11, 2016, the Court referred that motion to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). On April 26, 2016, Judge Bloom issued an R&R recommending that plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint be denied. (R&R (Doc. No. 45) at 1.) Judge Bloom found that the amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim that the City of New York promulgated a custom or policy that violates federal law, as required for municipal liability under § 1983. (R&R at 2-3.) Judge Bloom also found that defendants would be unduly prejudiced by the amendment because discovery was almost closed. (R&R at 3.) Finally, Judge Bloom reminded the parties that, pursuant to Rule 72(b), any objection to the R&R must be filed within fourteen (14) days. More than fourteen (14) days has passed and no party has filed any objection.

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court has reviewed the R&R (Doc. No. 45) for clear error and, finding none, concurs with the R&R in its entirety. See Covey v. Simonton, 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to amend (Doc. No. 44) is denied.

SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York

December 20, 2016

/s/_________

ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rao v. City of N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dec 20, 2016
14-CV-7422 (RRM)(LB) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2016)
Case details for

Rao v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:KISHOR KUMAR RAO and POORNIMA KISHOR, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Dec 20, 2016

Citations

14-CV-7422 (RRM)(LB) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2016)