Johnson v. DeRose et al

Filing 20

ORDER deeming defts' motion to dismiss 13 as unopposed, GRANTING motion, directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case & deeming any appeal from this order as frivolous & not in good faith. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 10/21/08. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PERNELL JOHNSON, : : Plaintiff : : v. : : WARDEN DOMINICK DEROSE, et al., : : Defendants : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-CV-1063 (Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2008, upon consideration of defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 13), and it appearing that plaintiff failed to oppose the motion in accordance with the local rules of court, and the Third Circuit having held that consistent with local rules of court, a motion to dismiss may be granted without a merits analysis "if a party fails to comply with the rule after a specific direction to comply from the court," Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991), and plaintiff having been warned via order of this court (Doc. 19) that his failure to file an opposition brief on or before October 15, 2008, would result in the motion being deemed unopposed and an order granting the motion to dismiss without a merits analysis, see L.R. 7.6, and it further appearing that as of the date of this order plaintiff has failed to file his opposition brief, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) plaintiff's complaint is DEEMED unopposed pursuant to L.R. 7.6 and is GRANTED without a merits analysis. Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991) 2. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Any appeal from this order is DEEMED frivolous and not in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). S/ Christopher C. Conner CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge

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?