Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kyle Hendricks v. N.Y.C. Department of Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


November 21, 2011

KYLE HENDRICKS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
N.Y.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SICK CALL, AND DOCTOR CALVO, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul A. Engelmayer, District Judge:

OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Kyle Hendricks filed an amended complaint in this action on May 2, 2011. Plaintiff failed to serve a copy of the summons and amended complaint upon any defendants within 120 days of filing his amended complaint, as mandated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Subsequent mailed communications to plaintiff were returned to sender, and plaintiff failed to supply the Court with a forwarding address. On May 26, 2011, Judge George B. Daniels, to whom this case was originally assigned, referred the case to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox for general pretrial matters and for the resolution of dispositive motions. On October 28, 2011, Judge Fox issued a Report and Recommendation to this Court, recommending that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute, or to comply with a court order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). No timely written objections were filed.

DISCUSSION

In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district 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). When specific objections are made, "[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, "a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009) (citation omitted).

CONCLUSION

Careful review of the Report reveals that there is no clear error in its conclusions. The Report, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, is adopted without modification. This case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

20111121

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.