Mansaray v. Krous Security Service

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDC-SDNY DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: MOHAMED K. MANSARAY, DATE FILED: 8-3-20 Plaintiff, 20-CV-1415 (RA) v. ORDER KROUS SECURITY SERVICE AND ROBINSON, Security Director, Defendants. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on February 18, 2020. On July 2, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 12. No later than August 7, 2020, Defendants shall file proof of service on the docket, indicating that they served their motion on Plaintiff. Although Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 2, 2020, the Court has not yet received any response from Plaintiff. No later than August 24, 2020, Plaintiff shall file either a response to Defendants’ motion or a letter indicating that he does not intend to file a response. If Plaintiff informs the Court that he intends to pursue this action but chooses not to oppose Defendants motion, the Court will deem the motion fully briefed and take it under submission. See McCall v. Pataki, 232 F.3d 321, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[A]lthough a party is of course to be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to an opponent’s motion, the sufficiency of a complaint is a matter of law that the court is capable of determining based on its own reading of the pleading and knowledge of the law.”). If, however, Plaintiff does not respond to this Order––either by responding to the motion to dismiss or by submitting a letter indicating that he does not intend to respond—and does not request an extension to do so by August 24, 2020, the Court may dismiss this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Defendants shall provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2020 yp, New York, New York C RONNIEABRAMS SOS United States District Judge