Ellis v. The State of New York et al
| Anthony Malik Ellis |
| The State of New York, Catalano, Crowe, Osowick, Sonko, Rivera, Montgomery, Nadorost, Optomologist John Doe and Latourette |
| 1:2016cv08452 |
| October 28, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Dutchess |
| Kenneth M. Karas |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
156
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Accordingly, Plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Mena v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-3707, 2017 WL 6398728, at *2 (S.D.N. Y. Dec. 14, 2017) (noting that " ;a pro se plaintiff is not exempt from complying with court orders and must diligently prosecute his case"); Capogrosso v. Troyetsky, No. 14-CV-381, 2015 WL 4393330, at *5 (S.D.N. Y. July 17, 2015) (finding the fact that the plaintiff "h as not responded to efforts to contact her" weighs in favor of dismissal for failure to prosecute); Savatxath v. City of Binghamton, No. 12-CV-1492, 2013 WL 4805767, at* 1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2013) (dismissing case for failure to prosecute afte r the plaintiff" neglected to comply with an order...requiring him to notify the court...as to why th[e] action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute"); Smalls v. Bank ofN Y., Nos. 05-CV-8474, 07-CV-8546, 2008 WL 1883998, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2008) (dismissing case for failure to prosecute where the court received no communication from the plaintiffs for nearly two months); Robinson v. United States, No. 03-CV-1001, 2005 WL 2234051, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2005) (&qu ot;Only the Plaintiff can be responsible for notifying the court and the Defendant of his updated address, and Plaintiff's failure to do so has made it impossible to provide him any notice."). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff's last known address, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 7/31/2020) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
153
OPINION & ORDER: re: 141 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits ReUploaded per ECF filed by Latourette, Osowick, Sonko, Crowe, Catalano, Rivera, Nadorost, Montgomery, 129 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Latourette, Osowick, Sonko, C rowe, Catalano, Rivera, Nadorost, Montgomery. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Claims against all Defendants other than Sonko and Montgomery are hereby dismissed with preju dice. Plaintiff's excessive force claims against Sonko and Montgomery, based on their conduct toward Plaintiff on the evening of September 11, 2016, remain. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion, (Dkt. Nos. 129, 141), enter judgment in favor of all Defendants except for Sonko and Montgomery, and mail a copy of this Opinion to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 4/23/2020) (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
