Opinion
Civil Action No. 8:08-cv-1075 (GLS/DRH).
April 1, 2009
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: KAMAL KARNA ROY, Plaintiff Pro Se, Saranac, New York.
ORDER
The above-captioned matter comes to this court following a Report-Recommendation by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer, duly filed March 4, 2009. Following ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein.
No objections having been filed, and the court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation for clear error, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David R. Homer filed March 4, 2009 is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons state therein, and it is further
ORDERED, that Roy's complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f)(1)(C) and 37(b)(2)(A)(v) for Roy's failure to comply with the Court's October 17 and November 13, 2008 orders, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the court serve a copy of this order upon the parties in accordance with this court's local rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
Plaintiff pro se Kamal Karna Roy ("Roy") commenced this action on October 9, 2008 under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging violations of his civil rights. Docket No. 1. The complaint was incomprehensible. Id. In an order filed October 17, 2008, this Court directed Roy to file an amended complaint that fully complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and 10. Docket No. 3. On November 5, 2008, Roy filed an amended complaint that remained similarly incomprehensible. Docket No. 4. The Court then issued an order on November 12, 2008 directing Roy to appear before the undersigned in person on December 4, 2008 to review with Roy personally the defects in his complaints and the requirements for filing a sufficient complaint. Docket No. 5. The intent of the order was to facilitate Roy's efforts to file a facially sufficient complaint. Roy neither appeared on that date nor contacted the Court with an explanation for his nonappearance. Accordingly, since this action cannot proceed in the absence of Roy's submission of a sufficient complaint, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that Roy's complaint be DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f)(1)(C) and 37(b)(2)(A)(v) for Roy's failure to comply with the Court's October 17 and November 12, 2009 orders; and it is hereby
ORDERED that the Clerk serve Roy with a copy of this order by regular mail. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have ten days within which to file written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN TEN DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW . Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Secretary of HHS, 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6(a), 6(e).