Perez v. General Motors LLC et al, No. 1:2015cv00240 - Document 40 (N.D.N.Y 2016)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER: It is Ordered that the # 39 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety, further it is Ordered that Defendant's # 37 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's # 1 Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety and the Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of defendant and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 5/16/2016. {Copy sent to the pro se plaintiff by regular and certified mail} (jmb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Perez v. General Motors LLC et al Doc. 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ GLADYS PEREZ, Plaintiff, 1:15-CV-0240 (GTS/CFH) v. PATROLMAN JACK WALLACE, Defendant. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: GLADYS PEREZ Plaintiff, Pro Se 63 Second Street, Unit 1 Waterford, New York 12188 HON. JOHN J. REILLY Corporation Counsel for the City of Albany Counsel for Defendant City Hall 24 Eagle Street Albany, New York 12207 VALERIE A. LUBANKO, ESQ. Deputy Corporation Counsel GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Gladys Perez (“Plaintiff”) against Jack Wallace, a police officer employed by the City of Albany, New York (“Defendant”), are (1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and (2) United States Magistrate Christian F. Hummel’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s motion be granted and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. Nos. 37, 39.) None of the parties have filed objections to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Dockets.Justia.com Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Hummel’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant’s motion is granted, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 39) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (Dkt. No. 37) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Defendant and close this action. Dated: May 16, 2016 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY Chief United States District Judge 1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. 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.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
