Hall v. NYC Water Board

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------------- X

:

ANTHONY WINSTON HALL, :

:

Plaintiff, : 24 Civ. 2483 (JPC) (GWG)

:

-v- : ORDER ADOPTING

: REPORT AND

NYC WATER BOARD, Chief Financial Officer JOSEPH : RECOMMENDATION

MURIN, Agents, Successors, and Assigns, :

:

Defendants. :

:

----------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Anthony Winston Hall brings this action alleging breach of contract by the New

York City Water Board (the “Water Board”), a named employee, and unknown agents, successors,

and assigns. Dkt. 1. By Order dated October 15, 2024, the Honorable Gabriel W. Gorenstein, to

whom this case has been referred for general supervision of pretrial proceedings and the issuance

of a report and recommendation on any dispositive motion, see Dkt. 11, issued a Report and

Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant the Water Board’s motion to dismiss for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), Dkt. 21, and

dismiss this case without prejudice. Dkt. 27.

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge” in a Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). If a party submits a timely objection to any part of the magistrate judge’s

disposition, the district court will conduct a de novo review of the contested section. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(3); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). If no

objections are made, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See, e.g.,

Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

The Report and Recommendation was entered on October 15, 2024, and was mailed to

Plaintiff at his address on the docket the following day, October 16, 2024. Citing both Rule 72 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Report and Recommendation

advised the parties that they had fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to

file any objections, and warned that failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of

any right to object. Dkt. 27 at 11. No objections have been filed and the time for making any

objections has passed, even if the additional three days under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d)

were to apply. The parties have therefore waived the right to object to the Report and

Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir.

1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008).

Notwithstanding this waiver, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and

Recommendation, and finds it to be well reasoned and its conclusions well founded. Accordingly,

the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismisses this case without

prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to

close Docket Numbers 21 and 24, and to close this case.1

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would

not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an

1 The Court has received a mailing from Plaintiff, dated October 28, 2024, entitled “Motion

for Interpleader Disbursement,” in which Plaintiff apparently moves the Court to award him

$40,000,000. The motion contains no statement which the Court can construe as an objection to

Judge Gorenstein’s Report and Recommendation. For the reasons given in the Report and

Recommendation, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this submission, which

would be wholly without merit in any case.

appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant

demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED. Wha

Dated: November 7, 2024 eal

New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN

United States District Judge