# Hall v. NYC Water Board

> District Court, S.D. New York · November 7, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10733526

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** November 7, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10733526

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10733526. Public record. Not legal advice.