Lorick v. Kowlessar
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-08917
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lorick v. Kowlessar, Judge Vargas granted the defendants’ dismissal motion and dismissed the case because Lorick did not respond or prosecute it.
Bruce Lorick and the defendants, including Parole Officer Kowlessar; the case was dismissed and closed.
What happened
In Lorick v. Kowlessar, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Bruce Lorick did not oppose the motion, even after the court ordered him to explain why the motion should not be treated as unopposed.
The court granted the motion and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41, also relying substantially on the reasons in the defendants’ memorandum. The court declined to give Lorick another opportunity to amend because it found that amendment would be futile and that he had already been allowed to amend once. Pending motions were declared moot, conferences were canceled, and the case was closed.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas issued the order on August 27, 2025. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or provide additional detail about the defendants’ arguments.
The detailed version
- Lorick v. Kowlessar · No. 1:24-cv-08917
- Vargas
- Aug. 27, 2025
Background
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Bruce Lorick’s complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on May 16, 2025. Lorick did not file an opposition. On August 4, 2025, the court ordered him to show good cause by August 12 for not responding and warned that failing to do so could lead to treatment of the motion as unopposed or dismissal for abandoning the case or failing to prosecute it under Rule 41. Lorick did not respond to that order.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41, substantially for the reasons stated in the defendants’ memorandum of law. The opinion does not set out the underlying claims or explain those additional reasons in detail.
The court also declined to grant Lorick leave to file another amended complaint. It stated that amendment would be futile because the problems with the claims were substantive and could not be fixed through better pleading. The court also noted that Lorick had previously been allowed to amend, had not requested permission to file a second amended complaint, and had not indicated that he had facts that would cure the problems identified in the motion.
Disposition
The complaint was dismissed. The court declared any pending motions moot, canceled all conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.