Rose et al v. The State of New York et al

Filing 37

ORDER re: 22 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Correction Officer Richardson #3854, City of New York, Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 22 MOTION to Dismiss . By June 17, 2022, Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond to Defendants' ; Motion to Dismiss. Failure to file an opposition will result in the Court considering Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as unopposed, and may result in dismissal of the action. Additionally, failure to respond to the Court's Orders may res ult in a dismissal for failure to prosecute. West v. City of New York, 130 F.R.D. 522, 524 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ("Dismissal is warranted where there is a lack of due diligence in the prosecution of the lawsuit by [the] plaintiff."). Defendant s are directed to serve a copy of this Order and their motion to dismiss papers (ECF 22-23) by trackable means to Plaintiff and file proof of service on the docket. SO ORDERED. : ( Responses due by 6/17/2022) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 5/5/22) (yv)

Case 1:21-cv-03164-AT-OTW Document 37 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------x
DARRELL ROSE,
Plaintiff,
-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK., et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------x

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 21-CV-3164 (AT) (OTW)
ORDER

ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge:
After the December 2, 2021 Initial Case Management conference, Plaintiff was directed
to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss by January 14, 2022. (ECF 30). On
January 11, 2022, Plaintiff requested an extension to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
until March 18, 2022, which the Court granted. (ECF 35, ECF 36). To date, Plaintiff has not
responded to Defendants’ motion to dismiss or requested a further extension.
By June 17, 2022, Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Failure to file an opposition will result in the Court considering Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
as unopposed, and may result in dismissal of the action. Additionally, failure to respond to
the Court’s Orders may result in a dismissal for failure to prosecute. West v. City of New York,
130 F.R.D. 522, 524 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (“Dismissal is warranted where there is a lack of due
diligence in the prosecution of the lawsuit by [the] plaintiff.”).

1

Case 1:21-cv-03164-AT-OTW Document 37 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 2

Defendants are directed to serve a copy of this Order and their motion to dismiss papers
(ECF 22-23) by trackable means to Plaintiff and file proof of service on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Ona T. Wang
Ona T. Wang
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: New York, New York
May 5, 2022

2