Filed: Apr. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2019
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER FRANK P. GERACI, JR. , Chief District Judge . On June 20, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Ayodeji Kayode Animashaun brought this case against Defendants Todd Tryon, Joseph Koson, and Michael Phillips for alleged violations of his constitutional rights while he was detained in a federal detention facility in Batavia, New York. ECF No. 1. The Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all pretrial matters excluding dispositive motions. ECF No.
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER FRANK P. GERACI, JR. , Chief District Judge . On June 20, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Ayodeji Kayode Animashaun brought this case against Defendants Todd Tryon, Joseph Koson, and Michael Phillips for alleged violations of his constitutional rights while he was detained in a federal detention facility in Batavia, New York. ECF No. 1. The Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all pretrial matters excluding dispositive motions. ECF No. ..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
FRANK P. GERACI, JR., Chief District Judge.
On June 20, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Ayodeji Kayode Animashaun brought this case against Defendants Todd Tryon, Joseph Koson, and Michael Phillips for alleged violations of his constitutional rights while he was detained in a federal detention facility in Batavia, New York. ECF No. 1. The Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all pretrial matters excluding dispositive motions. ECF No. 22.
On March 1, 2019, Judge Roemer issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommends that the Court dismiss this case due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. ECF No. 33. The R&R stated that Plaintiff had 14 days after he received the R&R to file objections to it or request an extension of time to do so. Id. at 8. Despite this directive, Plaintiff has not filed anything or otherwise communicated with the Court.
Generally, the Court reviews portions of the R&R to which a party makes specific objections de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When a party does not object to the R&R, however, the Court will review the R&R for clear error. EEOC v. AZ Metro Distributors, LLC, 272 F.Supp.3d 336, 339 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Dafeng Hengwei Textile Co. v. Aceco Indus. & Commercial Corp., 54 F.Supp.3d 279, 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)). "When performing such a `clear error' review, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc., 130 F.Supp.3d 677, 686 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court reviewed Judge Roemer's R&R and finds no clear error and therefore accepts and adopts the R&R in its entirety. This action is dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and the Clerk of Court will close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
