Whittington v. Ponte

ELECTRONICALLY FILED | ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOS Wn 05 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [DATE FILED b8\2050 | Matthew Whitingon Plaintiff, 16 CIVIL 1152 (AJN) -against- JUDGMENT Commissioner Joseph Ponte, et al., Defendants. ene ee It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2020, the Court has considered the remainder of Whittington's claims and arguments and finds them to be without merit. See, e.g., LV Compl. at 1 (alleging, in a conclusory manner, "6th amendment violations" but providing no facts or legal argumentation supporting that theory). The Court also declines to consider the claims Plaintiff raises for the first time in his Opposition Brief to Defendants motion, given that he was provided four opportunities to amend his complaint. See P1. Br. at 2. Therefore, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962); accordingly, the case is closed.

Dated: New York, New York May 28, 2020 RUBY J. KRAJICK ClerkofCourt BY: x n 2 Deputy Clerk