UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FATIMA KAMARA, Plaintiff, 25-CV-1062 (DEH) (HJR) v.

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ORDER Defendant(s).

DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Fatima Kamara brought this action against Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. pursuant to

, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. An order issued February 10, 2025, referred this case to Magistrate Henry J. Ricardo for general pretrial management and dispositive motions. See ECF No. 6. On May 13, 2025, Judge Ricardo issued an order directing Plaintiff to respond no later than May 20, 2025, by submitting a letter stating why the summons and Complaint had not been served within the 90 days prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) or, if Plaintiff believed Defendant had been served, to provide proof of such service. See May 13, 2025 Order, ECF No. 7. The May 13, 2025 Order also warned Plaintiff that failure to “timely show good cause for why such service was not completed” would result in a recommendation to the undersigned “that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.”

Plaintiff then failed to respond or file proof of service. On August 8, 2025, Judge Ricardo issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See ECF No. 8. Service was effectuated via ECF on August 8, 2025.

Plaintiff had until August 22, 2025 to file any objections to the Report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (giving parties fourteen days to file written objections). No objections were filed. In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). “In a case such as this one, where 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.” Kuan v. Notoriety Grp. LLC, No. 22 Civ. 1583,

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2023). The Court has reviewed the Report and has found no error, clear or otherwise. It is hereby ORDERED that the Report is ADOPTED IN FULL. As set forth in the Report, Plaintiff has not prosecuted the case for nearly eight months, failed to show good cause for the failure to serve the summons and complaint or to provide proof of service, and failed to respond to the May 13, 2025 Order or otherwise communicate with the Court. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to mail a copy of this order to the pro se Plaintiff.

Dated: October 2, 2025 New York, New York

DALEE.HOU United States District Judge