McTerrell v. Koenigsmann

ANTES DISTRI A> FILED ACO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SS Oy WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SEP 16 2024 I Ly, Wetec LOEWENGUTH OM SEAN MCTERRELL, TERN DISTRICTS Plaintiff, Vv. 18-CV-1028 (JLS) (HKS) CARL J. KOENIGSMANN, DONNA BONNING, TIMOTHY FOSTER, BRANDON ROBERTS, CHRISTOPHER LONG, KATHLEEN SAULT, JEFFREY SKOCZYLAS, DAVID WILLIAMS, DEBORAH GRAF, PAMELA WATERS, SUSAN LAMB, DONALD YATES, DEBORAH GRAF, NURSE KASAL, JOHN MORLEY, ALBERT GALANTE, FRANK GALANTE, AND STEPHEN LASKOWSKI, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, commenced this action on September 18, 2018. Dkt. 1. He asserts various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged unlawful treatment that he suffered while in New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) custody. See id. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 50.

On July 9, 2024—after several Court orders that had been mailed to Plaintiff were returned as undeliverable, see, e.g., Dkt. 1538, 158—the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt.

159. Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause.

On August 26, 2024, Judge Schroeder issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Neither party objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 6386(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and the relevant record. Based on that review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Schroeder’s recommendation. As such, Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2024 al Buffalo, New York wee □ De -F NP L. SINATRA, JR. ~~ ED STATES ee JUDGE