Akinlawon v. Mayo et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
AYOTUNJI AKINLAWON,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	9:24-CV-17 (AJB/MJK)
RYAN O’NEIL et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
AYOTUNJI AKINLAWON
Plaintiff, Pro Se
13-B-3238
Five Points Correctional Facility
Caller Box 119
Romulus, NY 14541
HON. LETITIA JAMES 	SUSANNA M. KLOSE, ESQ.
New York State Attorney General 	Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On January 4, 2024, pro se plaintiff Ayotunji Akinlawon (“plaintiff”), an individual in the
custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
(“DOCCS”), filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that various defendants violated his civil
rights while he was confined at Mid-State Correctional Facility in July of 2023. Dkt. No. 1. Along
with his complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”).
Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7.
Case 9:24-cv-00017-AJB-MJK Document 77 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
The case was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd, who granted plain-
tiff’s IFP Application, dismissed several of his claims, and concluded that plaintiff’s § 1983 claims
for excessive force against defendants O’Neil and Doe #1 required a response. Dkt. No. 9. There-
after, defendant O’Neil answered the remaining claims, Dkt. No. 15, and the parties attempted to
conduct a period of fact discovery, see Dkt. Nos. 26, 31, 46, 57. The matter has since been reas-
signed to this Court. Dkt. No. 39.
At some point during this discovery period, plaintiff stated to opposing counsel—and later
to the assigned magistrate judge—that he wanted to voluntarily dismiss this civil action. Dkt. Nos.
48, 64-5. Later, however, plaintiff changed his mind and requested to move forward with discov-
ery. Dkt. No. 58. But plaintiff failed to appear for a re-noticed deposition set for October of 2025.
Dkt. No. 64-12. Afterward, defendant’s counsel sought and received permission to file a motion
to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Dkt. Nos. 62, 63, 64. Plaintiff sought and received an extension
of time to oppose the motion. Dkt. Nos. 69, 71. The motion has since been fully briefed. Dkt.
Nos. 72, 73, 74.
On March 16, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz advised by Report & Recom-
mendation (“R&R”) that defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted and that plaintiff’s complaint
be dismissed with prejudice. 	Dkt. No. 75. 	There, Judge Katz recounted the salient procedural
history, including the fact that plaintiff repeatedly sought to voluntarily discontinue this action and
thereafter failed to participate in discovery, including his re-noticed deposition. Id. After weighing
the relevant factors under Rule 41(b) and Rule 37, Judge Katz concluded that plaintiff’s complaint
should be dismissed. Id.
Case 9:24-cv-00017-AJB-MJK Document 77 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
Plaintiff has not lodged objections.1 The time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 75. Upon review for clear error, Judge Katz’s 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. 75) is ACCEPTED;
2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 64) is GRANTED; and
3. Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions, enter a judgment ac-
cordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 14, 2026
Utica, New York.
1 After Judge Katz issued his R&R, plaintiff filed a “response” to defendant’s reply memorandum. Dkt. No. 76.
Although this is technically an unpermitted sur-reply to defendant’s motion to dismiss, in light of plaintiff’s pro se
status, and out of an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed the filing and considered it in light of the R&R’s
findings and conclusions. Even viewed in that light, plaintiff’s filing does not alter the analysis of the pending mo-
tion or the outcome of the R&R.
Case 9:24-cv-00017-AJB-MJK Document 77 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 3