Opinion
21-CV-2730 (VSB)
06-22-2022
SILVIANO CHRISTMAN, Plaintiff, v. CO MONTERO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
VERNON S. BRODERICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pursuant to my order dated June 2, 2022, Plaintiff should have updated his address on the docket and filed his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss by June 21, 2022. (See Doc. 41.) Plaintiff has done neither. I directed the Clerk of Court to mail that order to the pro se Plaintiff, (see id.), but on June 17, 2022, the mail was returned for the following reason: “Return To Sender REFUSED Unable To Forward, Released CR Federal, Released - No Forwarding Address on File.”
Despite my repeated admonitions that he should keep his address up to date and that failure to do so may result in dismissal, (see Docs. 20, 23, 25, 38, 41), Plaintiff has again failed to update his address. This case cannot proceed without updated contact information for Plaintiff, dismissal is warranted. See e.g. Campbell v. New York City, No. 19-CV-5431 (JMF), 2020 WL 469313, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2020) (dismissing a pro se plaintiff's claims under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders and update his address). Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The City is ordered to notify Plaintiff of this order, and the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED.