Hampton v. Nebo et al
ORDER. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the City's motion, the above-captioned case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the case. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 1/17/2017) (rjm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JAMES H. HAMPTON, JR.,
NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND
HOSPITALS CORPORATION; WOODHULL
HOSPITAL POLICE OFFICER MCFADDEN
OR MCFARLAND 1-14-2016; CITY OF
NEW YORK; CAPTAIN WILLIAMS AMKC
C-71 E50 UNIT MAY 2016,
16 Civ. 4961 (ER)
James H. Hampton, Jr. ("Plaintiff') filed this prose action on or around June 15, 2016.
On December 9, 2016, Defendant City of New York (the "City") filed a motion to dismiss the
case for failure to prosecute. Doc. 14. The City argues that Plaintiff failed to comply with this
Court's Orders dated September 27, 2016 (Doc. 11) and November 1, 2016 (Doc. 13) by failing
to: ( 1) provide the City with more information regarding the officer who allegedly used force
against him; (2) provide the City with an unsealing release pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L. § 160.50 and
executed medical releases; and (3) provide the Court with an updated mailing address. Doc. 14
On December 12, 2016, the Court entered an Order notifying Plaintiff that his response to
the City's motion was due December 30, 2016 and advising Plaintiff that failure to prosecute his
claim could result in dismissal of his case. Doc. 15 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b)). Plaintiff did
not submit a response, nor has he provided the Court with an updated mailing address.
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the City's motion, the above-captioned case
is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
January 17, 2017
New York, New York
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?