Magee v. The Walt Disney Company
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-06992
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Magee v. The Walt Disney Company, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint after Magee failed to file the required amended complaint.
Quincy Magee's complaint was dismissed; The Walt Disney Company and The American Broadcasting Company were the defendants in the case.
What happened
In Magee v. The Walt Disney Company, the court had ordered Quincy Magee to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal. Magee did not file one.
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The opinion also says the complaint had been filed without paying the filing fee and that the court terminated all other pending matters.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied fee-waiver status for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order directed the clerk to mail Magee a copy and record service on the docket.
The detailed version
- Magee v. The Walt Disney Company · No. 1:19-cv-06992
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 9, 2020
Background
Quincy Magee sued The Walt Disney Company and The American Broadcasting Company. The opinion does not describe the claims in the original complaint. On October 15, 2019, the court ordered Magee to file an amended complaint within 60 days and expressly warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
Ruling
Magee did not file an amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The complaint had been filed without payment of the filing fee under the statute allowing a person who qualifies to proceed without paying that fee.
The court also directed the clerk to mail Magee a copy of the order, note service on the docket, and terminate all other pending matters. Judge Colleen McMahon certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.