UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 4, 2009
KAMAL KARNA ROY, PLAINTIFF,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R. Homer U.S. Magistrate Judge
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).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.