Quinones v. Biolife Plasma Services Inc

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 27, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-03855·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HILARIALQUINONES, SSS

Plaintiff, -against- 25 CIVIL 3855 (LLS) JUDGMENT BIOLIFE PLASMA SERVICES INC., et al, Defendants. wee K It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated June 25, 2025, the Court has dismissed the complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Q), (11). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444- 45 (1962); Judgment is entered dismissing the case. Dated: New York, New York June 27, 2025 TAMMI M. HELLWIG Clerkof Court

BY: HK. (MANGO DeputyClerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Quinones v. Biolife Plasma Services Inc, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Quinones v. Biolife Plasma Services Inc (Quinones v. Biolife Plasma Services Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)