UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MICHAEL MOORE,

Plaintiff, 24-CV-1223-LJV v. DECISION & ORDER

JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC,

Defendant.

On February 26, 2025, the defendant, Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC (“Jefferson”), moved for judgment on the pleadings. Docket Item 19. This Court then issued a scheduling order requiring the pro se plaintiff, Michael Moore, to respond by March 20, 2025, and giving Jefferson until April 3, 2025, to reply. Docket Item 20. Moore did not respond to Jefferson’s motion nor did he seek an extension of time to do so. So on July 14, 2025, this Court ordered Moore to show cause “why his claims should not be deemed abandoned and dismissed” based on his failure to respond. Docket Item 22; see, e.g., Leal, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.,

, 660 (D. Conn. 2021) (granting motion for judgment on pleadings on claim that plaintiff had abandoned, noting that “[a] court may, and generally will, deem a claim abandoned when a plaintiff fails to respond to a defendant’s arguments that the claim should be dismissed” (citation omitted)); Howard v. City of Rochester,

, 217 n.1 (W.D.N.Y. 2025) (“[T]he failure to substantively respond to the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to that point constitutes abandonment of that claim.”). The Court cautioned that “[i]f Moore d[id] not respond by” August 14, 2025, the Court would “deem his claims abandoned and grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings on that basis.” Docket Item 22. Moore has not responded to this Court’s order to show cause, and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, this Court hereby deems Moore’s claims abandoned and GRANTS Jefferson’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Docket Item 19. Moore’s

motions to strike Jefferson’s answer, Docket Item 10; to opt out of mediation, Docket Item 11; and for disclosure of certain documents, Docket Item 12, are DENIED without prejudice as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. This Court hereby certifies, under

(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals in forma pauperis is denied. Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). Further requests to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis should be directed, on motion, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2025 Buffalo, New York

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