MEMORANDUM & ORDER

*1 The Court has received Magistrate Judge Reyes's comprehensive Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated September 9, 2022. ECF No. 64. Judge Reyes recommends that I grant the City Defendants’ (as defined in the R&R) motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Rules 37 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based on Plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with the Court's discovery orders. He also recommends that I deny Plaintiff's request to compel production of certain video footage and motion for sanctions against the City Defendants’ counsel.

Plaintiff timely objected, arguing that the Court should excuse his actions — and inaction — because he is “not schooled at law” and in the “court's rule[s] and procedures.” ECF No. 65 at 2.

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). The district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which a party has specifically objected. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also Kruger v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 2d 290, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (“A proper objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the R&R that the objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.”), aff'd, 578 F. App'x 51 (2d Cir. 2014). When considering the objections of a pro se litigant, the Court interprets those objections to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See Spaulding v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 407 F. Supp. 3d 143, 144 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). As to the portions of the R&R to which no party has objected, the Court reviews for clear error on the face of the record. See Advisory Comm. Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); accord State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grafman, 968 F. Supp. 2d 480, 481 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).

Plaintiff's objection that he is not schooled in the law is not the type of objection that might implicate the standard of review here. He identifies no specific portion of the R&R that is supposedly erroneous. Thus, I have reviewed the R&R for clear error; I conclude that the recommendations contained therein are well-supported in law and fact, and therefore adopt it in its entirety.

Accordingly, the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff's request to compel discovery and motion for sanctions are denied. This action is therefore dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Vassel v. Palisades Funding Corp.

Citation: 2023 WL 6201737 (E.D.N.Y. 2023)

Summary: The Plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with the Court's discovery orders regarding Electronically Stored Information led to a recommendation by the Magistrate Judge to grant the City Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's objections were overruled by the district court, resulting in the dismissal of the case with prejudice and denial of the Plaintiff's request for discovery and sanctions.

Court: United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date decided: September 22, 2023

Judge: Komitee, Eric R.

PAUL VASSEL, Plaintiff, v. PALISADES FUNDING CORP., WILLFREDO TORO, RICHARD NATHANIEL, JUDE REIMBEAU, GREGORY NUZZI, et al., Defendants 19-CV-3241(EK)(RER) United States District Court, E.D. New York Filed September 22, 2023 Counsel Paul Anthony Vassel, Jamaica, NY, Pro Se. Bruce W. Minsky, Law Offices of Bruce W. Minsky, P.C., Spring Valley, NY, for Defendant Palisades Funding Corp. John Edmund Schemitsch, Luca Difronzo, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants Detective Richard Nathaniel, Sergeant Jude Reimbeau, Police Officer Gregory Nuzzi. Komitee, Eric R., United States District Judge MEMORANDUM & ORDER *1 The Court has received Magistrate Judge Reyes's comprehensive Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated September 9, 2022. ECF No. 64. Judge Reyes recommends that I grant the City Defendants’ (as defined in the R&R) motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Rules 37 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based on Plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with the Court's discovery orders. He also recommends that I deny Plaintiff's request to compel production of certain video footage and motion for sanctions against the City Defendants’ counsel. Plaintiff timely objected, arguing that the Court should excuse his actions — and inaction — because he is “not schooled at law” and in the “court's rule[s] and procedures.” ECF No. 65 at 2. 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). The district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which a party has specifically objected. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also Kruger v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 2d 290, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (“A proper objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the R&R that the objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.”), aff'd, 578 F. App'x 51 (2d Cir. 2014). When considering the objections of a pro se litigant, the Court interprets those objections to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See Spaulding v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 407 F. Supp. 3d 143, 144 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). As to the portions of the R&R to which no party has objected, the Court reviews for clear error on the face of the record. See Advisory Comm. Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); accord State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grafman, 968 F. Supp. 2d 480, 481 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). Plaintiff's objection that he is not schooled in the law is not the type of objection that might implicate the standard of review here. He identifies no specific portion of the R&R that is supposedly erroneous. Thus, I have reviewed the R&R for clear error; I conclude that the recommendations contained therein are well-supported in law and fact, and therefore adopt it in its entirety. Accordingly, the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff's request to compel discovery and motion for sanctions are denied. This action is therefore dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close this case. SO ORDERED.