UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BENJAMIN J. DELO, Plaintiff, -against- 24-CV-6025 (JGLC) FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, ORDER Defendant.

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge: Having denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, see ECF No. 51, the Court now takes up an outstanding issue from its August 27, 2025 Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 48. In its August 27 Order, the Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims under

,

(c)(3),

, and the New York Constitution. ECF No. 48 at 2. But the Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s Section 1983 and Title VI claims without prejudice, and granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint “to allege facts that establish standing and plead plausible Section 1983 and Title VI claims.”

The Court informed Plaintiff that if he did not file an amended complaint by September 26, 2025, the remaining claims would be dismissed with prejudice, and the Court would close the case.

As of today’s date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s August 27 Order, nor has he otherwise indicated that he intends to pursue this action. When a party is “given adequate notice and opportunity to amend the deficiencies in its

complaint and fail[s] to do so,” dismissal with prejudice is proper. Document Techs., Inc. v. LDiscovery, LLC,

, 34 (2d Cir. 2018). Furthermore, “in the absence of any indication that [Plaintiff] could—or would—provide additional allegations that might lead to a different result,” dismissal with prejudice is warranted. Gallop v. Cheney,

(2d Cir. 2011). Because the Court has not received an amended complaint nor any response from Plaintiff that he intends to amend his complaint, the instant action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.

Dated: November 3, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE United States District Judge