Parks v. Montefiore Medical Center

Filing 55

ORDER re: 54 Letter, filed by Bryant E. Parks, 50 Memorandum & Opinion. In its Opinion and Order dated February 3, 2025, the Court granted Defendant the motion filed by Montefiore Medical Center ("Montefiore") to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Bryant Parks's amended complaint in its entirety. (ECF No. 50 ("February 3, 2025 Opinion and Order").) However, the Court afforded Parks the opportunity to clarify "(1) whether or not he asked Montefiore to wor k remotely before he was fired, and (2) whether or not remote security positions were available at the time he was fired." (Id. at 8.) Parks submitted a letter on March 3, 2025, indicating that he never requested remote work prior to his termi nation (though he disputes whether he or Montefiore should have had the responsibility to raise the prospect of remote work) and that he does not know whether there were any remote positions available at the time of his termination. (See ECF N o. 54 at 1.) The Court construes Parks's letter as a motion to amend the Court's judgment, filed within twenty-eight days as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Because Parks's failure to allege that he requested a r emote-work accommodation and that remote work was available at the time of his termination formed the basis for granting Montefiore's motion to dismiss, Parks's most recent letter presents no basis for amending the February 3, 2025 Opini on and Order. Because the foregoing disposes of Parks's appropriately filed motion to amend the Court's judgment, the thirty-day deadline to file an appeal runs from the date of this Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 3/7/2025) (ar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BRYANT E. PARKS,
Plaintiff,
23-CV-4945 (JPO)
-vORDER
MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:
In its Opinion and Order dated February 3, 2025, the Court granted Defendant the motion
filed by Montefiore Medical Center (“Montefiore”) to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Bryant Parks’s
amended complaint in its entirety. (ECF No. 50 (“February 3, 2025 Opinion and Order”).)
However, the Court afforded Parks the opportunity to clarify “(1) whether or not he asked
Montefiore to work remotely before he was fired, and (2) whether or not remote security
positions were available at the time he was fired.” (Id. at 8.) Parks submitted a letter on March
3, 2025, indicating that he never requested remote work prior to his termination (though he
disputes whether he or Montefiore should have had the responsibility to raise the prospect of
remote work) and that he does not know whether there were any remote positions available at the
time of his termination. (See ECF No. 54 at 1.) The Court construes Parks’s letter as a motion to
amend the Court’s judgment, filed within twenty-eight days as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). Because Parks’s failure to allege that he requested a remote-work
accommodation and that remote work was available at the time of his termination formed the
basis for granting Montefiore’s motion to dismiss, Parks’s most recent letter presents no basis for
amending the February 3, 2025 Opinion and Order.

1

Because the foregoing disposes of Parks’s appropriately filed motion to amend the
Court’s judgment, the thirty-day deadline to file an appeal runs from the date of this Order. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 7, 2025
New York, New York

2