JOYCE v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. et al
Filing
29
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 6/30/11. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARILYN JOYCE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action Number: 09-02460
v.
OPINION
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI
Defendants.
OPINION
This is a diversity action brought by Plaintiff Marilyn Joyce against Defendants
Continental Airlines, Inc. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Joyce
alleges that she was injured in a Continental Airlines terminal in Newark Liberty
International Airport, an entity which Joyce asserts is owned and operated by the Port
Authority. Before the Court is a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Falk
dismissing this action sua sponte for failure to prosecute this case. No timely objections
have been filed. For the reasons elaborated below the Court adopts the report and
recommendation, and will DISMISS this action.
I.
BACKGROUND
This action was filed on August 25, 2009. The Port Authority filed a motion to dismiss.
No opposition was filed, and the motion was granted. Joyce’s attorney filed a motion to
withdraw as an attorney. The attorney asserted that Plaintiff has failed to assist counsel in
prosecuting this matter and has not responded to counsel’s numerous attempts to contact
her. The motion to withdraw was granted. The order granting the attorney’s motion was
served on Plaintiff by Plaintiff’s former counsel. The order directed Plaintiff to appear
pro se or to have new counsel enter an appearance by May 2, 2011. The order expressly
warned Plaintiff that failure to comply may lead to sanctions, including, possibly, the
dismissal of this action. Plaintiff did not comply and the Magistrate Judge issued a report
and a recommendation to dismiss this action. (Doc. No. 28.)
1
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court characterizes the Magistrate Judge’s sua sponte decision to recommend
dismissing this case as akin to action on a motion to dismiss, which is, of course, a
dispositive motion. With respect to dispositive motions, the district court must make a de
novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report to which a litigant
has filed an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). More specifically,
New Jersey Local Rule 72.1(c)(2) provides that “[s]uch party [seeking review] shall
file . . . written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the . . .
recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis of such objection.”
N.J. L.R. 72.1(c)(2). Pro forma objections which fail to comply with the local rule will
not be considered. Mersmann v. Continental Airlines, 335 F. Supp. 2d 544, 547 (D.N.J.
2004).
However, where, as here, no objections are made in regard to a report or parts thereof, the
district court will adopt the report and accept the recommendation if it is “satisf[ied] . . .
that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory
Committee’s Notes (citation omitted); see Peerless Ins. Co. v. Ambi-Rad, Ltd., 2009 WL
790898, at *4 (D.N.J. March 23, 2009) (same).
III.
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge issued a thorough, lucid, and well-reasoned report, examining the
propriety of dismissal where a Plaintiff willfully abandons her case, and the propriety of
dismissal under the Third Circuit’s multi-factor balancing test, which has application
where a party fails to obey a court order. See Poulis v. State Farm & Cas. Co., F.3d 863
(3d Cir. 1984).
The Court sees no error, much less clear error, with regard to the Magistrate Judge’s
recitation of the facts, the legal rule applied, or the application of the law to these facts.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff was expressly warned that her failure to comply with
the Magistrate Judge’s order may lead to dismissal. (Doc. No. 26.)
IV.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons elaborated above, the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation,
and DISMISSES this action. An appropriate order follows.
s/ William J. Martini
William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.
DATE: June 30, 2011
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?