Johnson v. Janvier et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
MICHAEL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	9:24-CV-1399 (AJB/MJK)
MIRLENE JANVIER and
OFFICER DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On November 15, 2024, plaintiff Michael Johnson (“plaintiff”), who was at that time an
individual in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Su-
pervision (“DOCCS”) at Mid-State Correctional Facility, filed this counseled 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging that defendant Mirlene Janvier and ten John Does assaulted him. Dkt. No. 1. The
matter was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby, but was soon reassigned to
this Court. Dkt. No. 5.
On May 9, 2025, defendant moved for pre-answer dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint. Dkt.
No. 13. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw because plaintiff had stopped
communicating with the firm and diligent attempts to locate plaintiff had failed. Dkt. No. 16. That
motion was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz, who stayed consideration of the
motion to dismiss and directed plaintiff to show cause why his counsel should not be relieved.
Dkt. Nos. 15, 17, 22. 	After plaintiff failed to respond, Judge Katz granted plaintiff’s counsel’s
motion to withdraw and directed plaintiff to appear on his own behalf. Dkt. No. 24. But plaintiff
Case 9:24-cv-01399-AJB-MJK Document 32 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
failed to appear, so Judge Katz lifted the stay on defendant’s motion to dismiss, which remained
pending. Dkt. No. 26.
Soon after, however, plaintiff’s former counsel filed a letter requesting a further 30-day
stay of the Court’s consideration of the still-pending motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 27. In light of
the unusual nature of the request and plaintiff’s pro se status, Judge Katz relented. Dkt. No. 28.
In a follow-up letter, plaintiff’s former counsel asked for a further 30-day extension to give plain-
tiff more time to retain successor counsel. Dkt. No. 29. Again, Judge Katz agreed. Dkt. No. 30.
Ultimately, however, those deadlines elapsed without the appearance of successor counsel
on plaintiff’s behalf. 	Worse still, plaintiff has not communicated with the Court directly, and a
recent attempt by the Clerk’s Office to obtain an address for plaintiff suggested that he has ab-
sconded from parole supervision and is, for present purposes, unreachable. 	Accordingly, Judge
Katz advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that defendant’s long-pending motion to
dismiss be granted. Dkt. No. 31.
Plaintiff has not lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 31. Upon review for clear error, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See FED. R.
C IV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 31) is ACCEPTED;
2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED; and
3. Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions, enter a judgment ac-
cordingly, and close the file.
Case 9:24-cv-01399-AJB-MJK Document 32 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 9:24-cv-01399-AJB-MJK Document 32 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3