Robert S. Stone, Jr. v. The State of New York, et al.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------X FILED CLERK ROBERT S. STONE, JR., 2/3/2026 12:51 pm Plaintiff, U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -against- ORDER LONG ISLAND OFFICE 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 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.