Stone Jr. v. The State of New York et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 	For Online Publication Only
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
ROBERT S. STONE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
-against- 	ORDER
24-cv-7600 (JMA) (ST)
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
On October 30, 2024, Plaintiff Robert S. Stone Jr. brought this action against Defendants
the State of New York, the State of New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of
Michigan, and Donald J. Trump alleging that Defendants’ COVID-era policies killed nursing
home residents. (See ECF No. 1.) On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
removing all Defendants except for the State of New York and the New York Commissioner of
Transportation. 	(See 	ECF 	No. 	7.) 	Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Judge 	Tiscione’s 	report 	and
recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and
failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No.
16.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts Judge Tiscione’s R&R in its entirety and
dismisses this action.
I. 	DISCUSSION
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a district court must “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which
objection[s] [are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States ex rel. Coyne v. Amgen,
Inc., 243 F. Supp. 3d 295, 297 (E.D.N.Y. 2017), aff’d sub nom., Coyne v. Amgen, Inc., 717 F.
App’x 26 (2d Cir. 2017). The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Portions of a
FILED
CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
2/3/2026 12:51 pm
-----------------------------
Case 2:24-cv-07600-JMA-ST Document 19 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
report and recommendation to which there are no specific reasoned objections are reviewed for
clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
No objections were filed to Judge Tiscione’s R&R, and the Court finds the R&R contains
no clear error.1 Therefore, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court.
II. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to
close this case and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his last known address
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	February 3, 2026
Central Islip, New York
/s/ JMA
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Judge Tiscione ordered Defendants to serve the R&R on Plaintiff at his last known address. (See January 12, 2026
Order.) On January 26, 2026, Defendants filed a letter on the docket representing that, although they had mailed a
copy of the R&R to Plaintiff’s last known address, it was returned as undeliverable because the U.S. Postal Service
determined the address to be vacant. (See ECF No. 18.) The Court notes that Plaintiff was ordered on December 16,
2024, to keep the Court informed of any changes to his address and that he was warned that failure to keep the Court
so informed could result in the dismissal of this action. (See ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court with
a current address is a further reason to dismiss this action. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff was sent an
electronic notification concerning the R&R via the email address he provided and will also be sent an electronic
notification concerning the instant order.
Case 2:24-cv-07600-JMA-ST Document 19 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>