Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 28, 2021

Windley v. Westchester County

Docket
7:19-cv-04858
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Motion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Windley v. Westchester County, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Who this affects

Ian Windley’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice after the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The case was closed.

What happened

In Windley v. Westchester County, the defendants moved to dismiss Ian Windley’s complaint. The judgment does not describe the claims or the defendants’ arguments.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It stated that the reasons were explained in a memorandum opinion and order dated January 27, 2021.

The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice because any amendment would be futile and closed the case. The opinion does not identify an individual judge; the judgment was signed by Clerk of Court Ruby J. Krajick.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Windley v. Westchester County · No. 7:19-cv-04858
Date
Jan. 28, 2021

Background

Ian Windley sued Westchester County and other defendants. The judgment itself does not state the claims, the underlying events, or the parties’ arguments. It refers to a memorandum opinion and order dated January 27, 2021, but that document is not included here.

Ruling

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which asks the court to end a case based on the complaint and applicable legal rules. The court granted that motion. It dismissed Windley’s complaint with prejudice, meaning the judgment bars amendment of the complaint in this case. The court stated that amendment would be futile and closed the case.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed. The judgment was dated January 28, 2021, and signed by Clerk of Court Ruby J. Krajick; the opinion text does not identify the individual judge who issued the underlying ruling.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.