From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Worytko v. County of Suffolk

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Apr 30, 2009
03-CV-4767 (DRH) (ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2009)

Opinion

03-CV-4767 (DRH) (ARL).

April 30, 2009


ORDER


On April 14, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay issued a Report and Recommendation (the "Report") in this case recommending that plaintiff's claims be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) or, in the alternative, that discovery be closed and that this case marked as trial ready. More than ten days have elapsed since service of the Report and no objections have been filed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, this Court has reviewed the Report for clear error. The Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts the Report as if set forth herein. For the reasons set forth in the Report, including "plaintiff's repeated pattern of ignoring the court's orders and her longstanding delay in prosecuting the case," the Court adopts Judge Lindsay's recommendation that plaintiff's claims be dismissed because "lesser sanctions will merely cause additional prejudice to defendants and wasting of the court's resources." (Report at 8.) Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to dismiss plaintiff's claims with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and close the case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Worytko v. County of Suffolk

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Apr 30, 2009
03-CV-4767 (DRH) (ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2009)
Case details for

Worytko v. County of Suffolk

Case Details

Full title:KAREN WORYTKO, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Apr 30, 2009

Citations

03-CV-4767 (DRH) (ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2009)

Citing Cases

Kraus v. Lee

“The law is clear that when a pro se litigant fails to provide the court with notice of a change of address…

Estate of Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd.

Dismissal under Rule 41(b) involves consideration of five factors: (1) the duration of Defendants' failure to…