Latimer v. Royce
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-01275
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Latimer v. Royce, Judge Briccetti extended Latimer’s deadline to oppose defendants’ pending dismissal motion.
Plaintiff Corey A. Latimer, Sr., who received additional time to respond to the pending motion to dismiss; defendants Mark Royce, Rosita Rossy, and David Mazella, whose corrected names were added to the caption and docket.
What happened
Latimer v. Royce is an order about the deadline for plaintiff Corey A. Latimer, Sr. to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court said Latimer’s response ordinarily would have been due July 12, 2021, but extended the deadline to July 28, 2021 because he was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer. The Clerk was also directed to update the defendants’ corrected names in the case records.
Judge Briccetti ordered that the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed if Latimer did not respond or request more time by July 28. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss. It also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Latimer v. Royce · No. 7:21-cv-01275
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 28, 2021
Background
Defendants Mark Royce, Rosita Rossy, and David Mazella filed a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2021. The motion supplied the defendants’ corrected names, which appear in the order’s caption. Plaintiff Corey A. Latimer, Sr. was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer.
Deadline for Response
Under Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 6.1(b), an opposing response ordinarily must be served within 14 days after the motion papers are served. The court stated that Latimer’s response ordinarily would have been due July 12, 2021. The court extended that deadline to July 28, 2021.
The court ordered that, if Latimer did not oppose the motion or request an extension by July 28, the motion would be considered fully submitted and unopposed. The order did not rule on the merits of the motion to dismiss.
Other Orders
The Clerk of Court was directed to update the caption and docket to reflect the defendants’ corrected names. The court also directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Latimer and reminded him to notify the court in writing if his address changes. The order states that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Disposition
Judge Briccetti extended Latimer’s deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss to July 28, 2021. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.