Price v. Koenigsmann

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 13, 2022
• Docket: 7:19-cv-04068-KMK
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X TYRONE PRICE, Plaintiff, 19 CIVIL 4068 (KMK) -against- JUDGMENT DR. CARL KOENIGSMANN, et al., Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated January 13, 2022, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss. Because this is the second adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants on the merits and the Court finds that any further amendment would be futile, the claims are dismissed with prejudice. See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1991) (“Of course, where a plaintiff is unable to allege any fact sufficient to support its claim, a complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.”); Denny v. Barber, 576 F.2d 465, 471 (2d Cir. 1978) (holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to “a third go-around”); see also Herbert v. Delta Airlines, No. 12-CV-1250, 2014 WL 4923100, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2014) (dismissing complaint with prejudice where “[the] [c]ourt previously granted [the pro se plaintiff] leave to replead, identifying his original complaint’s deficiencies” and “[the plaintiff’s]

amended complaint fails to correct any of these deficiencies,” explaining that “the [c]ourt lacks the basis to believe further amended pleadings would fare any better”); accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York January 13, 2022

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Cou BY: bD . mh oo