Megginson v. Stukes
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-09599
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Megginson v. Stukes, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case because Michael E. Megginson failed to prosecute it.
Michael E. Megginson and the defendants in the action, identified in the caption as Chief of Stukes and others.
What happened
Megginson v. Stukes was brought by Michael E. Megginson, who was representing himself. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 29, 2022.
The court ordered Megginson to respond to the motion by December 1, 2022, warning that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. He filed nothing. The court later ordered him to explain by February 10, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed, but he again did not respond.
On February 15, 2023, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Megginson v. Stukes · No. 1:21-cv-09599
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 15, 2023
Background
Michael E. Megginson, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the complaint on November 18, 2021. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 29, 2022.
Failure to Respond
After receiving no opposition to the motion, the court ordered Megginson on November 1, 2022, to file an opposition or a letter stating that he would not oppose the motion by December 1, 2022. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Megginson filed neither an opposition nor a letter.
On January 23, 2023, the court issued an order requiring Megginson to explain by February 10, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order again warned that failing to respond could result in dismissal. No response was filed.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party. The order did not rule on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or reach the merits of Megginson’s claims. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Megginson at the address of record.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.