Terry v. Stamford
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-03847
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Terry v. Stamford, Judge Furman granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed the case because Terry did not prosecute it or oppose dismissal.
Duwayne L. Terry’s case was dismissed after he did not oppose Defendants’ motion or respond to the court’s order. Defendants obtained the requested dismissal; pending motions became moot, conferences were vacated, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Terry v. Stamford, Defendants asked the court to dismiss Duwayne L. Terry’s complaint. Terry did not respond to the motion, and the court later ordered him to explain why the motion should not be treated as unopposed.
Terry did not provide that explanation or file an opposition. The court granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41, relying substantially on the reasons stated in Defendants’ legal memorandum.
Judge Furman also declined to give Terry permission to amend his complaint again, concluding that amendment would be futile and noting that Terry had already been allowed to amend. Any pending motions were declared moot, conferences were canceled, and the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Terry v. Stamford · No. 1:20-cv-03847
- Jesse Furman
- June 15, 2022
Background
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Terry did not file an opposition. The court then ordered Terry to show why the motion should not be treated as unopposed and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for abandonment or failure to prosecute under Rule 41.
Terry did not file an opposition or respond to the order to show cause.
Ruling
The court granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41. The court also dismissed the case substantially for the reasons stated in Defendants’ memorandum of law.
The court declined to grant Terry permission to amend the complaint on its own initiative. It explained that amendment may be denied when it would be futile because better pleading would not cure the problem with a claim. The court also noted that Terry had previously been given permission to amend, had not requested permission to file a second amended complaint, and had not indicated that he possessed facts that would address the problems identified in the motion to dismiss.
Effect of the Order
Any pending motions were declared moot, all conferences were canceled, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case and mail Terry a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.