Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Carno v. United States, 17 cv 7998 (NSR). (2020)

Court: District Court, S.D. New York Number: infdco20200122a56 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2020
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL NELSON S. ROM N , District Judge . Plaintiff Alexander Carno ("Plaintiff"), appearing pro se, commenced this action against the United States of America ("United States" or "Government"), Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), and Acting Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons, (together, "Federal Defendants"); Correct Care Solutions Inc. and Medical Director or CEO of Correct Care Solutions, Inc. (together "Correct Care Defendants"), Westchester County Jail and Warden or Sup
More

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Alexander Carno ("Plaintiff"), appearing pro se, commenced this action against the United States of America ("United States" or "Government"), Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), and Acting Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons, (together, "Federal Defendants"); Correct Care Solutions Inc. and Medical Director or CEO of Correct Care Solutions, Inc. (together "Correct Care Defendants"), Westchester County Jail and Warden or Superintendent or Sheriff of Westchester County Jail, (together, "Westchester Defendants"), (collectively, "Defendants"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Monell v. Dept't of Soc. Serv. of the City of N.Y., and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 2671 et seq. (See Complaint, ECF No. 2.)

On November 26, 2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") why this action should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (ECF No. 100.) In the OSC, the Court delineated Plaintiff's failure to prosecute his claims, including Plaintiff's failure to file a Fourth Amended Complaint and failure to take any action in this matter since filing his motion for court-appointed counsel. (Id.) Plaintiff was granted until December 31, 2019, to demonstrate to the Court that he had not abandoned his claims and was taking diligent steps to prosecute them. (Id.) Despite the passage of more than a month, Plaintiff has failed to communicate with the Court or otherwise respond to the OSC. Accordingly, due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action, the action is dismissed pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate this action. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff at the address listed on the docket and file proof of service on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer