From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roy v. USA

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Apr 1, 2009
Civil Action No. 8:08-cv-1075 (GLS/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2009)

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).


Summaries of

Roy v. USA

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Apr 1, 2009
Civil Action No. 8:08-cv-1075 (GLS/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2009)
Case details for

Roy v. USA

Case Details

Full title:KAMAL KARNA ROY, Plaintiff, v. USA, Defendant

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

Date published: Apr 1, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 8:08-cv-1075 (GLS/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2009)