Macias v. Apple Studios

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO RICHARD MACIAS, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:25-cv-00502-DHU-LF APPLE STUDIOS, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Pro se Plaintiff filed his Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 27, 2025. See Doc. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff asserted claims for “work discrimination, retaliation, harassment, wrongful demotion and termination, disability related mistreatment” stating: Plaintiff Richard Macias brings this complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, and related New Mexico state law, alleging discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful demotion, and wrongful termination. Plaintiff received EEOC Charge No. 543-2024-01247 and was issued a Right-to-Sue Notice dated February 25, 2025.

Summary of Claims: - Discrimination - Retaliation for protected complaints - Harassment (including sexual harassment) - Wrongful demotion and termination - Disability-related mistreatment Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court allow this case to proceed and preserve the right to amend or add details as discovery and legal counsel develop.

Complaint at 2, 9.

United States Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing notified Plaintiff the Complaint does not describe the facts supporting his claims and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. See Order for Amended Complaint, Doc. 5, filed May 29, 2025 (quoting Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.”)). Judge Fashing subsequently granted two motions by Plaintiff extending the deadline for filing an amended complaint from June 19, 2025, to September 20, 2025. See Doc. 7, filed July 23, 2025; Doc. 9, filed July 29, 2025. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the September 20, 2025, deadline.

The Court dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Order for Amended Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action”); Gustafson v. Luke, 696 Fed.Appx. 352, 354 (10th Cir. 2017) (“Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion to dismiss, the Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court's orders.”) (quoting Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)).

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. / “) fi / | Af fu □□□ DAVID HE RA URIAS United States District Judge