Stewart v. Medina
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:23-cv-00880
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Stewart v. Medina, Judge Briccetti granted Medina’s motion to dismiss, denied Stewart leave to amend, and closed the case.
Gary A. Stewart’s case was closed after the court granted G. Medina’s motion to dismiss and denied Stewart’s request for leave to amend. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Stewart v. Medina, the judgment concerns Defendant G. Medina’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Gary A. Stewart’s case. The judgment does not state the reasons for the motion or describe the claims; it refers to a separate opinion and order dated June 20, 2024.
The court granted G. Medina’s motion to dismiss and denied Gary A. Stewart’s request for permission to amend. The case was therefore closed. The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
The case information identifies Judge Vincent Briccetti. The judgment is dated June 20, 2024, and does not provide further details about the court’s reasoning.
The detailed version
- Stewart v. Medina · No. 7:23-cv-00880
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 20, 2024
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s separate Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2024, Defendant G. Medina’s motion to dismiss was granted. Plaintiff Gary A. Stewart’s request for leave to amend—that is, permission to file an amended pleading—was denied. The case was closed.
Appeal-Filing Status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Stewart permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal.
Limits of the Provided Text
The judgment does not identify the claims, explain the grounds for the motion to dismiss, or provide the court’s reasoning. Those details are referenced in the separate Opinion and Order but are not included in the provided text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.