William D. Smith v. Paul Evans et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. New York
• Decided: January 12, 2026
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00188
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WILLIAM D. SMITH,

Plaintiff, 21-CV-188-LJV-MJR v. DECISION & ORDER

PAUL EVANS et al.,

Defendants.

On June 9, 2025, the defendants—Paul Evans, Sharade Aldinger, Alfonso Harris, and Deanna Lates—moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute. Docket Item 63. This Court then issued a scheduling order requiring the pro se plaintiff, William D. Smith, to respond by July 1, 2025. Docket Item 64. When Smith did not respond by the deadline, on December 1, 2025, this Court ordered him to show cause “why his claims should not be deemed abandoned and dismissed” based on his failure to respond to the motion to dismiss. Docket Item 65; see, e.g., Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 519 F. Supp. 2d 448, 448-49 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (noting that because the plaintiff failed to respond to motion to dismiss, the Court “may deem [the plaintiff’s] claims as abandoned”); Palmer v. BCE Inc., 2004 WL 1752601, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2004) (stating that the plaintiff’s “failure to respond to [the] defendant’s motion to dismiss evidences his abandonment of the action”). The Court cautioned that “[i]f Smith d[id] not respond by” December 31, 2025, “this Court w[ould] deem his claims abandoned and grant the motion to dismiss on that basis.” Docket Item 65. Smith failed to respond to this Court’s order to show cause, and the time to do so has passed. See id. Accordingly, in light of Smith’s failure to respond, this Court hereby deems his claims abandoned and GRANTS the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Docket Item 63. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2026 Buffalo, New York

/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo LAWRENCE J. VILARDO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE