UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DELOECCUTMREONNTIC ALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: 4/3/20 23 MICHAEL E. MEGGINSON, Plaintiff, 1:22-cv-03815-MKV -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL ESH ADW MORALES, et al., Defendants. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Michael E. Megginson, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a complaint on May 10, 2022. [ECF No. 2.] On July 12, 2022, this Court issued a Valentin Order, directing the New York City Law Department to identify and provide the names and addresses of Defendants to Plaintiff by August 12, 2022. [ECF No. 11.] The Valentin Order further directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days of receiving this information. [ECF No. 11.] On August 11, 2022, the New York City Law Department filed a Certificate of Service. [ECF No. 13.] However, on August 22, 2022, Plaintiff informed the Court of his change in address. [ECF No. 14.] Accordingly on September 21, 2022, the New York City Law Department filed another Certificate of Service. [ECF No. 15.] In response, Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or take any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, on October 27, 2022, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file a letter on or before November 28, 2022, explaining why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 16.] The Court warned Plaintiff “that he is ultimately responsible for prosecuting his case, and this case may be dismissed because of his failure to comply with court orders and prosecute his case.” [ECF No. 16.] Plaintiff again failed to respond. Accordingly, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on January 9, 2023, directing Plaintiff to file a letter on or before March 9, 2023, explaining “why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” and stating that “Plaintiff is on notice that failure to comply with this Order and to prosecute his case will result in dismissal.” [ECF No. 18.] To date, no response has been filed and Plaintiff has taken no action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned action is discontinued for failure to prosecute without costs to any party. See LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2001) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962)). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff at the address of record. SO ORDERED. 4 7 i Vs : heel Date: April 3, 2023 MARY KAY VYSKOCIL New York, NY United States District Judge