Rayford v. Amazon Logistics, Inc.

NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

John Rayford

Plaintiff appearing Pro Se

Keith J. Rosenblatt, Esq.

Christie Ann Pazdzierski, Esq.

Littler Mendelson, P.C.

On behalf of Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC, Incorrectly s/h/a Amazon Logistics, Inc.

OPINION & ORDER

NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

WHEREAS, on December 20, 2021, Defendant removed this matter from the Superior Court of Gloucester County, New Jersey to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage (ECF No. 1); and

WHEREAS, on January 10, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 7); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2022, this Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with leave for Plaintiff to amend his Complaint within thirty (30) days (ECF No. 9); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was to be filed on or before October 3, 2022 (Id.); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court's September 2, 2022 Order and has not filed anything of record since filing his original Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, on September 27, 2021 (ECF No. 1, Ex. A); and

WHEREAS, “dismissal with prejudice that follow[s] plaintiff['s] decision not to amend [is] not an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., 5 Wright & Miller, § 1217 at 178 (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where party refuses to file an amended and simplified pleading).” In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 704 (3d Cir. 1996); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff's failure to amend his original complaint after the Court determined it failed to allege a plausible claim (ECF No. 8 at 10) warrants dismissal of this case with prejudice;

THEREFORE, it is on this 1^st day of March 2023, ORDERED that the above-captioned matter be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it further

ORDERED that the Clerk mark this matter as CLOSED.