Lebron v. Ramos
- 1:19-cv-02598
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lebron v. Ramos, the court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute and disobey court orders.
Richard Lebron’s amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the defendants obtained dismissal of the action at this stage. The judgment also denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Lebron v. Ramos, Richard Lebron sued Raul Ramos, M.D., and three other defendants. The judgment refers to an amended complaint but does not describe the underlying claims.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint because Lebron allegedly failed to prosecute the case and failed to comply with the court’s orders. The judgment does not provide the reasons for those alleged failures; it refers to a separate opinion and order dated July 21, 2022.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. The court also stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The case was closed. The provided judgment does not identify the judge.
The detailed version
- Lebron v. Ramos · No. 1:19-cv-02598
- July 26, 2022
Background
Richard Lebron was the plaintiff. The defendants were Raul Ramos, M.D., identified as the medical director of North Infirmary Command; Wolf, a registered nurse and hemodialysis nurse; Correa, a correction officer; and Nwagwu, a correction officer. The judgment does not state the claims in the amended complaint.
Motion and ruling
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s orders. The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated July 21, 2022, the motion was granted. The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the judgment did not bar refiling based on the terms stated here.
Appeal and case status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal. The case was closed. The provided judgment is signed by the clerk of court and does not identify the judge or include the reasoning from the July 21 opinion and order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.