E L E C T R O N I C A L L Y F I L E D DOC #: _________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 10/6/25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : BARRY NEMHARD, : : Plaintiff, : 1:25-cv-73-GHW : -v- : ORDER : NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF CHILD : SUPPORT, : : : Defendant. : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Barry Nemhard filed this action pro se on January 3, 2025. Dkt. No. 1. On September 3, 2025, the Court issued an opinion dismissing Plaintiff’s claim arising under

(the “1983 Claim”). Dkt. No. 17. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s claims arising under state law.

. The Court granted Mr. Nemhard leave to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the opinion.

. The deadline for Plaintiff to file any amended complaint was October 3, 2025. The Court’s September 3, 2025 order contained the following instruction: “If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within the time allowed, the Court will dismiss this action for the reasons set forth in this order and will direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Defendant.”

. The deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint has passed and he has not done so. Consequently, Plaintiff’s 1983 Claim is dismissed with prejudice; Plaintiff’s claims arising under state law are dismissed without prejudice. The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

, 444–45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant, to close the case, and to mail a copy of this order and the judgment to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 6, 2025 New York, New York / . . Loved _—- G H. WOODS United States District Judge