Dent v. Layo et al, No. 9:2019cv01546 - Document 22 (N.D.N.Y 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 20 ) for the reasons stated therein. Defendants' motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action, Dkt. No. 19 , is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court may close the file in this case. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 2/13/2021. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dent v. Layo et al Doc. 22 Case 9:19-cv-01546-TJM-DJS Document 22 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ TYRAN DENT, Plaintiff, -v- 9:19-CV-1546 LAYO, C.R. TREMBLAY, D. BROWN, and BHABORI, Defendants. _________________________________________ THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Def endants move to dismiss the Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. Dkt. No. 19. Plaintiff did not responded to the Motion. As Judge Stewart indicates, Plaintiff was released from the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) on December 19, 2019. Plaintiff has had no communication with Defendants’ counsel since being released, he has not provided an updated address to defense counsel, and he has not filed a change of address with the Court as he is required to do under the Local Rules. Further, all of the Orders the Court 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:19-cv-01546-TJM-DJS Document 22 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2 has issued since commencement of this case have been returned as undeliverable, including the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 20). As such Plaintiff has not responded to Judge Stewart’s recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion. II. DISCUSSION After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report- Recommendation and Order is not subject to attack f or plain error or manifest injustice. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 20) for the reasons stated therein. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action, Dkt. No. 19, is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court may close the file in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 13, 2021 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.
