JENKINS v. CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al

Filing 18

ORDER THAT THE CITY DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 16) IS GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE NORMA L. SHAPIRO ON 10/21/14. 10/22/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RYHEEM JENKINS
v.
CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY;
LOUIS GIORLA, Prison Commissioner; JOHN DELANEY,
Warden

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-6037

ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st

day of October, 2014, it appearing that:

a. On September 26, 2011, plaintiff, while in Philadelphia County custody, filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
b. By Order of October 28, 2011, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
was granted and his complaint was filed of record.
c. By Order of May 6, 2014, counsel for plaintiff was given leave to withdraw, the
Clerk was directed to revise the docket to reflect plaintiff’s correct address,1 and
plaintiff was given an opportunity to either obtain new counsel or advise the court
in writing that he would proceed pro se. This Order was not returned to the court
as undeliverable.
d. On August 14, 2014, counsel for the City defendants filed a motion to dismiss (paper
no. 14) with an incorrect certificate of service. On August 20, 2014, counsel for the
City defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss (paper no. 15) with an incorrect
certificate of service. These motions were denied as moot by Order of August 28,
2014.
e. On August 21, 2014, counsel for the City defendants filed an amended motion to
dismiss (paper no. 16) with a certificate of service stating that plaintiff had been
served at the address noted on the docket.
f.

A review of the docket shows that plaintiff has neither filed a response to the motion
to dismiss nor requested additional time to do so.

It is therefore ORDERED that:
1

Plaintiff informed the court on May 30, 2012 and September 19, 2014, of changes of his
address. A review of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections website showed that plaintiff had been
transferred to another institution. By Order of August 28, 2014, the Clerk was directed to revisee the
docket to reflect plaintiff’s correct address.
-1-

unopposed.

1. The City defendants’ amended motion to dismiss (paper no. 16) is GRANTED as
2. The Clerk is directed to mark this case CLOSED.

/s/ Norma L. Shapiro
J.

-2-