Delo v. Fordham University
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-06025
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Benjamin J. Delo v. Fordham University, Judge Clarke dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice after Delo failed to amend or respond.
Benjamin J. Delo’s remaining Section 1983 and Title VI claims against Fordham University were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
Benjamin J. Delo sued Fordham University. In an earlier order, the court dismissed some claims with prejudice and dismissed Delo’s claims under Section 1983 and Title VI without prejudice, allowing him to amend those remaining claims.
The court gave Delo until September 26, 2025, to file an amended complaint showing that he had the right to bring the claims and stating plausible claims. He did not file an amended complaint or otherwise indicate that he intended to continue the case.
On November 3, 2025, Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed the action with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Delo v. Fordham University · No. 1:24-cv-06025
- Clarke
- Nov. 3, 2025
Background
The court had previously denied Delo’s motion for reconsideration and addressed an outstanding issue from its August 27, 2025 order. That earlier order granted Fordham University’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed with prejudice Delo’s claims under 18 U.S.C. § 600, 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), 52 U.S.C. § 30118, and the New York Constitution.
The August 27 order dismissed Delo’s claims under Section 1983 and Title VI without prejudice and allowed him to amend his complaint. The court instructed him to allege facts establishing standing—the legal requirement that he was sufficiently affected to bring the claims—and to plead plausible claims under those laws. The court set September 26, 2025, as the deadline for an amended complaint and stated that failure to amend would result in dismissal with prejudice and closure of the case.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that dismissal with prejudice is proper when a party has adequate notice and an opportunity to correct deficiencies but fails to do so. It also relied on the absence of any indication that Delo could or would provide additional allegations that might produce a different result.
As of November 3, 2025, Delo had not filed an amended complaint and had not otherwise indicated that he intended to pursue the action. The court therefore dismissed the action with prejudice. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
Disposition
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed the action with prejudice. The order did not grant Delo another opportunity to amend, and it closed the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.