# Romano

> District Court, W.D. New York · November 6, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11215215

## Case

- **Full name:** Anthony Romano v. Stephen Laskowski, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. New York
- **Decided:** November 6, 2025
- **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/11215215

## Opinion text

UC NOV - 6 2025 )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Wks toewen uo
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SERN DISTRICL □□

ANTHONY ROMANO, 1:18-CV-00479-JLS-MJR
Plaintiff, REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
V.
STEPHEN LASKOWSKI, et a/.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
This case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Section 636(b)(1) of
Title 28 of the United States Code, by the Honorable John L. Sinatra, Jr., for all pre-trial
matters, including hearing and reporting on dispositive motions. (Dkt. No. 24).
The District Court previously dismissed this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
(Dkt. No. 55). Plaintiff Anthony Romano appealed that dismissal and the Second Circuit
issued a summary order vacating the judgment of the District Court and remanding the
case for further proceedings. (Dkt. No. 63). For the following reasons, the Court
recommends that the case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
BACKGROUND and PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, Anthony Romano, is a pro se litigant currently confined at Groveland
Correctional Facility. He filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate
indifference to his medical needs by prison officials occurring over several months in
2018. (Dkt. No. 1). The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the background and
procedural history of this case and reviews only the relevant information herein.

On October 20, 2021, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) and 37(b) on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to obey a court order and
failed to prosecute the case. (Dkt. No. 48). By Report and Recommendation dated June
21, 2022, this Court recommended to the District Court that plaintiff's claims be dismissed
without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 53). The District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss
by Decision and Order dated August 22, 2022. (Dkt. No. 55).
Plaintiff appealed the order of dismissal. On October 31, 2024, the United States
Court of Appeals for Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and
remanded the matter for further proceedings. (Dkt. No. 63). See Romano v. Laskowski,
22-1896, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27654 (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 2024). The District Court referred
the matter back to this Court to follow the Circuit Court's mandate to reconsider “(1)
whether Romano's conduct constituted willfulness, bad faith, or reasonably serious fault...
and (2) whether other sanctions may have been effective.” (Dkt. No. 64 (citing Dkt. No.
63, pg. 10)).
At the request of this Court, the parties submitted briefing on the questions posed
by the Second Circuit. (Dkt. Nos. 66; 69; 71). The Court has considered those
submissions in making this report and recommendation.
DISCUSSION
As was discussed in the prior Report and Recommendation, defendants noticed
plaintiff of their intent to take his deposition on August 25, 2021. (See Dkt. No. 53).
Defense counsel attempted to depose plaintiff on that date. (/d.). However, plaintiff
terminated the deposition before answering any substantive questions. (/d.). On
September 8, 2021, the Court issued a text order directing Plaintiff to appear for and

submit to deposition at a date and time chosen by defense counsel. (/d.). Plaintiff was
warned that his “fail[ure] to appear for and fully participate in his deposition as noticed”
might result in his being held in contempt of Court and this action being dismissed with
prejudice. (/d.). Defendants again served a notice of deposition on plaintiff. (/d.). On
September 15, 2021, the date of the rescheduled deposition, plaintiff again refused to be
deposed and defense counsel was unable to ask substantive questions or obtain relevant
information from plaintiff. (/d.). Based on plaintiff's refusal to comply with the Court order
regarding deposition, the Court determined that the case should be involuntarily
dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b). (/d.).
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f the plaintiff
fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move
to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. Failure to prosecute
can “evidence itself either in an action lying dormant with no significant activity to move it
or in a pattern of dilatory tactics.” Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 42 (2d
Cir. 1982). The Second Circuit has outlined several factors courts must consider before
dismissing a lawsuit for failure to prosecute. Lucas v. Miles, 84 F.3d 532, 535 (2d Cir.
1996). These factors include: “(1) the duration of the plaintiff's failure to comply with the
court order, (2) whether plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply would result in
dismissal, (3) whether the defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further delay in the
proceedings, (4) a balancing of the court’s interest in managing its docket with the
plaintiff's interest in receiving a fair chance to be heard, and (5) whether the judge has
adequately considered a sanction less dramatic than dismissal.” /d. at 535. No single
factor is generally dispositive. Nita v. Connecticut Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 16 F.3d 482, 485

(2d Cir. 1994). Before dismissing a case with prejudice, the court must make a finding of
“willfulness, bad faith, or reasonably serious fault” by evaluating the relevant factors.
Baptiste v. Sommers, 768 F.3d 212, 217 (2d Cir. 2014).'
Dismissal for lack of prosecution is a harsh remedy that should be utilized only in
extreme situations. Lewis v. Rawson, 564 F.3d 569, 576 (2d Cir. 2009). Although courts
generally allow “special solicitude” to pro se litigants, “[dJismissal of a pro se litigant's
action may be appropriate ‘so long as a warning has been given that non-compliance can
result in dismissal.” Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2009)
(quoting Valentine v. Museum of Modern Art, 29 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 1994)).?
In vacating the judgment of dismissal in this action, the Second Circuit determined
that this Court erred in recommending dismissal without prejudice when the applicable
statute of limitations would render plaintiffs claims time-barred. See Romano, 2024 U.S.
App. LEXIS 27654, at *9-10. “Because the dismissal without prejudice here operated in
effect as a dismissal with prejudice, the district court was required to make a finding of
‘willfulness, bad faith, or reasonably serious fault.” /d., 10-11 (citing Baptiste, 768 F.3d at
217). However, such a finding was not made. /d. Accordingly, the matter was remanded
for reconsideration, in the first instance, of whether plaintiff's conduct constituted
willfulness, bad faith, or reasonably serious fault. /d., at *12.

The Federal Rules also provide that an action may be dismissed if a party fails to comply with a court's
discovery order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). “[D]ismissals under Rule 37(b) and Rule 41(b) are
guided largely by the same analysis.” Viruet v. City of New York, 16-CV-8327, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
78395, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2020) (citations omitted). In evaluating a dismissal under Rule 37, the
Court should consider: "(1) the willfulness of the non-compliant party or the reason for noncompliance; (2)
the efficacy of lesser sanctions; (3) the duration of the period of noncompliance, and (4) whether the non-
compliant party had been warned of the consequences of... noncompliance." Agiwal, 555 F.3d at 302.
In this case, defendants sought dismissal of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rules 37(b) and 41(b).
2 The Court incorporates by reference its analysis of these factors and evaluation of the Rule 41(b) criteria
under the facts of this case as stated in the prior Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 53).

Additionally, the Second Circuit found that this Court had not adequately
considered whether sanctions “less drastic than dismissal” would be effective. /d. (citing
Lucas v. Miles, 84 F.3d 532, 535 (2d Cir. 1996)). The Second Circuit reasoned that this
Court’s conclusion that it was “unlikely that lesser sanctions would be effective” may have
been premised on the mistaken understanding that dismissal without prejudice was a less
severe sanction than dismissal with prejudice in this case. /d. Accordingly, the Court was
directed to reconsider whether other sanctions may have been effective. See id., at * 12.
Upon review, the Court finds that plaintiff's refusal to comply with this Court’s
discovery directives and failure to prosecute this case was willful. In the context of
dismissal with prejudice, the concept of “willfulness” implies a “deliberate disregard of the
lawful orders of the court.” Rosado v. Toulen, 18-C\V-3697, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97150,
at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2021) (citing Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corp. v. Allied
Artists Pictures Corp., 602 F.2d 1062, 1067) (2d Cir. 1979)); see also Elgard Corp. v.
Brennan Constr. Co., 248 Fed. Appx. 220, 223 (2d Cir. 2007) (summary order) (“We have
interpreted ‘willfulness,’ in the context of a default, to refer to conduct that is more than
merely negligent or careless.”).
Plaintiff refused to be deposed by defendants on August 25, 2021 and September
15, 2021. On those dates, he repeatedly stated that he would not cooperate unless he
was transferred to a new facility and/or provided with counsel. On September 8, 2021,
prior to the second attempted deposition, this Court issued an order requiring plaintiff to
submit to deposition and warning plaintiff that his failure to participate could result in him
being held in contempt of Court or dismissal of this action. (Dkt. No. 44). Despite this
directive, plaintiff refused to meaningfully participate in the deposition. In fact, by letter

dated September 9, 2021, plaintiff informed the Court that he would not participate in a
deposition without an attorney representing him. (Dkt. No. 45). Plaintiff is a seasoned
litigator who has initiated and litigated fourteen civil rights lawsuits in this District alone,
including through discovery, motion practice, trial, and appeal, in some instances. See
Rosado, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97150, at *13 (stating that a court may consider the
sophistication and circumstances of a plaintiff in evaluating whether his disregard of court
orders was “willful.”). It cannot be said that plaintiff was unaware of his discovery
obligations or that he failed to appreciate the import of a Court order. To the contrary,
plaintiff's attempt to condition his participation in a deposition upon the Court affording
him counsel is evidence of the willfulness of his conduct. Thus, the Court determines that
plaintiff's refusal to participate in the discovery process and his disregard of this Court’s
order constituted “willfulness, bad faith, or reasonably serious fault.” See Baptiste, 768
F.3d at 217.
Furthermore, since this Court issued its Report and Recommendation, plaintiff has
demonstrated a pattern of unwillingness to participate in depositions or appear for
hearings and conferences in several other cases pending before in this District. In
October 2024, the Honorable John L. Sinatra, Jr. dismissed two of this plaintiff's pending
cases based on failure to prosecute. See Romano v. Salotti, 17-CV-465, 2024 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 181897 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2024); Romano v. Ulrich. See 13-CV-633, 2024 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 201880 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2024).4

Romano v. Salotti, plaintiff alleged that while he was incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility
defendant was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
See 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181897, at *1.
Romano v. Ulrich, plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by multiple
corrections officers in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. See 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201880, at *1.

In Romano v. Ulrich, the Court found that plaintiff “repeatedly failed to participate
in the litigation of [the] case.” See 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201880, at *2. Plaintiff neglected
to file any trial submissions despite a scheduled trial date. /d. Plaintiff also refused to
appear before the Court for a pre-trial status conference and, after being given an
opportunity to appear at a second status conference, plaintiff refused to appear again. /d.,
at *3-4. Based on plaintiffs apparent abandonment of his claims, the Court concluded
that dismissal under Rule 41(b) was the only appropriate sanction. /d., at *9-10.
The matter of Romani v. Salotti, was scheduled for pre-trial status conferences
before Judge Sinatra on the same dates as Romano v. Ulrich. See 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
181897, at *2-3. Based on plaintiff's repeated refusals to appear, the Court again
concluded that plaintiff appeared to have abandoned his claims and determined that
dismissal under Rule 41(b) was the only appropriate sanction. /d., at *8.
Similarly, the Honorable Richard J. Arcara recently dismissed another of plaintiff's
civil rights lawsuits. See Romano v. Lisson, 16-CV-81, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224278
(W.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2024).5 There, plaintiff was transported to the courthouse from the
facility in which he was housed for a pre-trial evidentiary hearing before this Court. /d., at
*3-5. However, immediately before the hearing plaintiff stated he was experiencing
medical issues and was unable to attend. /d. The hearing was rescheduled to
accommodate plaintiff, but on the continuation date plaintiff refused transport from his
correctional facility to the courthouse. /d. The hearing was held in plaintiff's absence. /d.
When the matter was transferred to the District Judge to proceed to trial, plaintiff refused

5 In Romano v. Lisson, plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated in several regards,
including denial of access to mail and denial of due process rights, while he was incarcerated at Wende
Correctional Facility. See 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224278, at * 1-2.

to appear for a status conference. /d., at *7. A second court appearance was scheduled,
and a text order was issued warning plaintiff that his failure to appear could result in
dismissal of his case. /d., at *7-9.° Plaintiff then advised the Court that he was “not going
to any civil trial without an attorney at this time.” /d., at *9. A final status conference was
scheduled the following month and plaintiff again refused to appear, citing medical
problems. /d., at *10. Based on the record before it, the District Court concluded that
plaintiff had “exhibited a pattern of willful conduct and bad faith” weighing in favor of
dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b). /d., at *17.
Review of plaintiff's conduct in the case at bar and in the context of his other recent
lawsuits plainly demonstrates that plaintiff's refusal to be deposed and to participate in
the litigation of this action is willful. Indeed, plaintiff's claims were dismissed for failure to
prosecute in yet another case in this District based on the same refusal to participate in
the discovery process. See Romano v. Brown, 18-CV-302, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234142
(W.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2023), adopted by 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14407 (Jan. 25, 2024).
There, plaintiff repeatedly refused to be deposed, offering various excuses as to why he
had not appeared for any of his scheduled depositions. /d., at *2-7. The result in each of
these cases is the same and plaintiffs pattern of willful and bad faith conduct is clear.
It is noted that plaintiff has requested appointment of pro bono counsel numerous
times during the pendency of this matter. (Dkt. Nos.1; 19; 28; 33; 49; 54; 57; 66). The
Court has denied plaintiff's requests for counsel for the reasons stated on the record.’

6 The text order sent to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable with a notation stating: “INMATE
REFUSES TO ACCEPT LEGAL MAIL.” See 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224278, at *9.
7 As plaintiff is aware, civil litigants are guaranteed meaningful access to the courts as required by the
Constitution, but they do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel. See Fadia v. New Horizon
Hospitality, 08-CV-6268, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35748, at *1-2 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2010) (citing In re
Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1260 (2d Cir. 1984)). Certainly, the Court must consider the issue of

(Dkt. Nos. 3; 29; 35; 50; 55; 72). Nonetheless, plaintiff's obstructive and dilatory conduct
is consistent even in matters where he has been afforded pro bono counsel. In fact, in
most of the above-referenced cases, plaintiff was represented at some point by court-
appointed counsel, but plaintiff either dismissed that counsel or counsel moved to
withdraw from representation. See Romano v. Lisson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224278, at
*6 (noting that plaintiff complained and made disparaging remarks to the Court about his
pro bono counsel, resulting in a motion to withdraw which included the pro bono attorney’s
opinion that plaintiff “understands this matter and is capable of proceeding pro se for the
remainder of the case.”); Romano v. Salotti, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181897, at *2
(explaining that further appointment of counsel was not appropriate after plaintiff became
dissatisfied and dismissed two appointed attorneys); Romano v. Ulrich, 2024 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 201880, at *2-3 (explaining that further appointment of counsel was not
appropriate because plaintiff was “perennially unable to work with attorneys,” resulting in
four separate pro bono attorneys moving to withdraw from representation of plaintiff).
Thus, given plaintiff's conduct towards counsel in other cases, the Court finds any claim
by plaintiff that he would fully participate in discovery and prosecute this case if given pro
bono counsel to be disingenuous.
Lastly, the Court has also considered the application of less severe sanctions and
concludes that no sanction less than dismissal with prejudice would be effective under
these circumstances. As this Court previously observed, plaintiff has “plainly refused to
submit to deposition and has failed to abide by a Court order directing his participation.”

appointment carefully, for “every assignment of a volunteer lawyer to an undeserving client deprives
society of a volunteer lawyer available for a deserving cause.” Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170,
172 (2d Cir. 1989).

(Dkt. No. 53, pgs. 7-8). Plaintiff has ignored repeated opportunities to comply with his
discovery obligations, and it is unlikely that further admonishment from the Court will
compel his meaningful participation in this litigation. Further, a monetary sanction would
be inappropriate based on plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. See Coon v. Southwestern
Vt. Med. Ctr., 13-CV-182, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140036, at *23 (D. Vt. 2014) (“Given
[plaintiff's] in forma pauperis status, he would be unable to pay a monetary sanction.”)
Indeed, there is no apparent way for this matter to proceed without plaintiff's
participation. Under these circumstances, dismissal is appropriate. See Davis v. Lowe’s
Home Ctrs., 23-CV-5613, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64833, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2024)
(finding no sanction short of dismissal to be appropriate where plaintiff failed to appear at
a conference and ignored an order to show cause). Moreover, plaintiff has been warned
that his failure to heed the Court’s order regarding deposition would result in dismissal,
but that has not compelled him to comply. See Brow v. City of N.Y., 391 Fed. Appx. 935,
937 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (“[P]laintiff's failure to comply with the order warning
him of the possibility of dismissal demonstrated that lesser sanctions would be
ineffective.”); Rsch. Found. for the State Univ. of N.Y. v. Telluric Labs, LLC, 21-CV-1898,
2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174459, at *20 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2023) (citation omitted) (“When
a plaintiff fails to respond to a Court order once threatened with dismissal, it is unlikely
that a lesser sanction will result in reengagement in a matter.”); Lee v. Green, 10-CV-221,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131565, at *9-10 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2015) (finding that any
sanction short of dismissal to be ineffective where plaintiff “has repeatedly ignored
directives by failing to appear in court, failing to file responses as directed, and failing to
meet mediation and discovery obligations”); see also Chira v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp..,

10

634 F.2d 664, 667 (2d Cir. 1980) (“The language of Rule 41 makes [plaintiff's] failure to
comply with [the court’s] order a clear basis on which to affirm the dismissal.”).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that this case be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), it is hereby ORDERED that this Report and
Recommendation be filed with the Clerk of Court.
Unless otherwise ordered by Judge Sinatra, any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen days of service of
this Report and Recommendation in accordance with the above statute, Rules 72(b), 6(a),
and 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and W.D.N.Y. L. R. Civ. P. 72. Any
requests for an extension of this deadline must be made to Judge Sinatra.
Failure to file objections, or to request an extension of time to file objections,
within fourteen days of service of this Report and Recommendation WAIVES THE
RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER. See Small v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989).
The District Court will ordinarily refuse to consider de novo arguments, case law
and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but were not, presented to the
Magistrate Judge in the first instance. See Paterson—Leitch Co. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale
Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985, 990-91 (1st Cir. 1988).
Finally, the parties are reminded that, pursuant to W.D.N.Y. L.R.Civ.P. 72(b),
written objections “shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and
recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for each objection, and shall

11

be supported by legal authority.” Failure to comply with these provisions may result
in the District Court's refusal to consider the objection.

SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 5, 2025
Buffalo, New York

MICHAEL J. tg
United States Magistrate Judge

12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11215215. Public record. Not legal advice.