PROCTOR v. MCCOY
- Andrew Carter
- 1:15-cv-03766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Proctor v. McCoy, Judge Carter dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff did not show cause or prosecute it.
The plaintiff and the remaining defendants were affected: the case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and closed. The matter as to Travis McCoy had been dismissed earlier.
What happened
In PROCTOR v. MCCOY, the court had previously dismissed the matter as to Defendant Travis McCoy and ordered the plaintiff to explain why the claims against the remaining defendants should not also be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
The plaintiff did not make the required showing. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute in more detail.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), directed that the order be mailed to the plaintiff, and ordered the case closed.
The detailed version
- PROCTOR v. MCCOY · No. 1:15-cv-03766
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 5, 2020
Background
On September 30, 2020, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing the matter as to Defendant Travis McCoy. The court also directed Plaintiff to show cause—meaning to explain—why the claim against the remaining defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The opinion states that Plaintiff did not make that showing.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court cited authority recognizing that Rule 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss a plaintiff’s case on its own for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Plaintiff and close the case.
Scope and Effect
This order addresses the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, not the merits of the underlying claims. The earlier dismissal as to Travis McCoy had already occurred. The opinion does not identify the remaining defendants by name or provide additional details about the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.