Burton v. Silvercrest Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 26

ORDER dated 4/15/14 that more than a year has passed since this Court issued the second memorandum and order, plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendant and to close this case. ( Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 4/15/2014 ) c/m by Chambers. (Guzzi, Roseann)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------x
ANN BURTON,
Plaintiff,
-againstSILVERCREST CENTER FOR NURSING
AND REHABILITATION, MARIE MITCHELL,
and DARLENE WEITZMAN,

ORDER

11-CV-2757 (SLT)(LB)

Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------x
TOWNES, United States District Judge:
In June 2011, plaintiff Ann Burton, proceeding pro se, brought this action against one of
her former employers, Silvercrest Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation ("Silvercrest"), and two
of its employees, Marie Mitchell and Darlene Weitzman, principally alleging that these
defendants retaliated against her for filing charges against them with the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. In a memorandum and order dated November 10, 2011, and filed
November 14, 2011, this Court construed plaintiffs complaint as raising only Title VII
retaliation claims and dismissed the action against the two employees, noting that individuals
cannot be liable for retaliation under Title VII. Burton v. Silvercrest Ctr. for Nursing & Rehab.,
No. l l-CV-2757 (SLT)(LB), 2011WL5546068 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011). Thereafter, the only
remaining defendant, Silvercrest, moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Title
VII retaliation claims on various grounds.
In a memorandum and order dated and filed March 29, 2013, the Court granted
Silvercrest's motion to dismiss the Complaint. Burton v. Silvercrest Ctr. for Nursing & Rehab.,
No. l l-CV-2757 (SLT)(LB), 2013 WL 1346308 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2013). However, in light of
plaintiffs pro se status, the Court granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to attempt to

allege certain Title VII retaliation claims. Id. The memorandum and order specifically warned
plaintiff that judgment would be entered against her if she failed to file the amended complaint
within 30 days from the date of the memorandum and order. Id. at *9.
More than a year has passed since this Court issued the second memorandum and order,
but plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to
enter judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendant and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.

/s/(SLT)

~ANDRA L. TOWNES •
United States District Judge

0,

Dated: April /
2014
Brooklyn, New York

2