Schmiege v. Henton

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK nnn ee ee eee KX BRIAN E. SCHMIEGE, Plaintiff, -against- 19 CIVIL 7229 (PMH) JUDGMENT DEPUTY OF HEALTH HENTON and DR. ALAM, Defendants. eee eK It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 20 2021, For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court dismisses Plaintiff s Complaint. While “[d]istrict courts should frequently provide leave to amend before dismissing a pro se complaint . . . leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile.” Reed v. Friedman Mgt. Corp., 541 F. App’ 40, 41 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)). Here, any amendment would be futile as Plaintiff cannot establish that his medical conditions implicate the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment; accordingly, this action is case is closed.

Dated: New York, New York January 21, 2021

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerkof Coury77 BY: . av) Clerk