Scarlett v. The City of New York, 1:15-cv-00790

Plaintiff Twan Scarlett sued the City, NYPD, Detective Richard Digangi and unnamed officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution and municipal liability stemming from his arrest and alleged denial of medical treatment.
Plaintiff filed the complaint on February 13, 2015; defense anticipated a motion to dismiss and the court observed the pleadings appeared inadequate and warned Plaintiff accordingly at a pre-motion conference.
Plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw in September 2015; the court granted withdrawal and stayed the case to allow Scarlett to obtain new counsel or proceed pro se.
Scarlett sent letters reiterating his claims (including that criminal charges were dismissed and he was denied hospital treatment) and indicated intent to proceed pro se, but later repeatedly failed to appear at status conferences before Magistrate Judge Levy.
Magistrate Judge Levy issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) on March 28, 2016 recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute; Scarlett did not object to the R&R.
The district court reviewed the unopposed R&R, found no clear error, adopted it in full, and dismissed the action for failure to prosecute; the case was closed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether case should proceed despite procedural defects and counsel withdrawal	Scarlett urged continuation pro se and reiterated merits (false arrest, denial of medical care)	Defendants signaled intent to move to dismiss; prior court noted pleadings appeared inadequate	Court dismissed for failure to prosecute after Scarlett’s repeated nonappearance and no opposition to R&R
Whether the R&R required de novo review	Scarlett did not object to the R&R	Defendants relied on Magistrate’s recommendation	Court applied standard review, found no clear error, and adopted the R&R
Whether failure to object waives review	Scarlett filed no objections	Defendants relied on waiver doctrine	Court treated the R&R as unopposed and applied waiver principles when appropriate
Appropriate disposition of the case	Scarlett sought to litigate merits	Defendants sought dismissal/may have sought Rule 11 consideration earlier	Court dismissed the action and directed the Clerk to close the case

Sepe v. N.Y. State Ins. Fund, [citation="466 F. App'x 49"] (2d Cir. 2012) (failure to object to R&R may waive further review when parties are warned)
United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1997) (discussing waiver by failure to object to magistrate judge recommendations)
Almonte v. Suffolk Cty., [citation="531 F. App'x 107"] (2d Cir. 2013) (failure to object to R&R waives further review of purported errors)
Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2003) (party’s failure to object to magistrate report waives appellate review)
Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing waiver of appellate review where objections to magistrate’s report are not timely filed)