Gunn v. Annucci
- 7:20-cv-02004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gunn v. Annucci, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
Darrell Gunn’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice, while the defendants obtained dismissal of the case. The case was closed.
What happened
Darrell Gunn sued Anthony Annucci and other defendants. The judgment does not describe the claims or the events underlying the lawsuit.
The defendants moved to dismiss Gunn’s complaint. The opinion text provided does not include the court’s reasons beyond its conclusion that changing the complaint would be futile.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, meaning it could not be amended in this case; the case was closed. The judge is not identified in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Gunn v. Annucci · No. 7:20-cv-02004
- Apr. 29, 2021
Background
Darrell Gunn, identified in the caption as a plaintiff, sued Anthony Annucci, identified as Acting Commissioner, and other defendants. The provided judgment does not state the claims Gunn brought or the factual basis for the lawsuit.
Motion and ruling
The defendants moved to dismiss. The judgment states that, for the reasons in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 29, 2021, the motion was granted. It also states that although courts often allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend a complaint, amendment was unnecessary here because it would be futile.
The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed. The provided text does not include the referenced Memorandum Opinion and Order, so it does not explain the specific legal grounds for dismissal. The judge’s name is not identified in the provided opinion text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.