Farrow et al v. The County of Cayuga et al, No. 9:2018cv00804 - Document 23 (N.D.N.Y 2019)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice due to plaintiffs' failure to comply with the prior Orders of this Court and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 5/29/19. {order served via regular mail on all non-ecf parties}(nas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Farrow et al v. The County of Cayuga et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RONDELL D. FARROW, JR., RICHARD A. BIZARDI, and DEREK SEDORE, Plaintiff, 9:18-CV-0804 (DNH/DJS) v. THE COUNTY OF CAYUGA, DAVID GOULD, Sheriff; and JOHN/JANE DOE(S), Administration of Cayuga County Jail, Defendants. APPEARANCES: RONDELL D. FARROW, JR. 16-B-1644 Plaintiff, Pro se Elmira Correctional Facility P.O. Box 500 Elmira, NY 14902 RICHARD A. BIZARDI 7253 Plaintiff, Pro se Cayuga County Jail 7445 County House Road Auburn, NY 13021 DERRICK SEDORE 11928 Plaintiff, Pro se Cayuga County Jail 7445 County House Road Auburn, NY 13021 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge Dockets.Justia.com DECISION and ORDER This action was originally commenced by six pro se plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 ("Section 1983").1 Dkt. No. 1. As a result of four prior Orders, Eugene D. James, Brett H. Thomas, and Kevin Z. Daniels have been dismissed as plaintiffs from this action. Dkt. Nos. 5, 12, 17 and 21. The remaining plaintiffs in this action are: Rondell D. Farrow, Jr. ("Farrow"), Richard A. Bizardi ("Bizardi"), and Derrick Sedore ("Sedore"). Id. On March 13, 2019, Sedore filed motions for the appointment of counsel and for an extension of time to file an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 18. The Court denied the motion for counsel and afforded Sedore another opportunity to comply with the prior Orders. Id. at 5. In light of the extension, the Court also afforded Farrow and Bizardi a final opportunity to comply with the prior Orders and to submit an amended pleading. As of the date of this Decision and Order, plaintiffs have not complied with the March Order, nor have they communicated with the Court in any manner regarding this action. Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice due to plaintiffs' failure to comply with the prior Orders of this Court and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and 2. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on plaintiffs at their 1 A more complete history of this action to date can be found in the prior Decisions and Orders filed on July 27, 2018, October 25, 2018, November 28, 2018, and March 3, 2019. See Dkt. No. 5 (the "July Order"), Dkt. No. 12 (the "October Order"), Dkt. No. 17 (the "November Order"), and Dkt. No. 21 (the "March Order"). 2 address of record. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 29, 2019 Utica, New York. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
