DEEN-MITCHELL v. LAPPIN et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Mannion 95 , DISMISSING pltf's amended complaint 94 , directing Clrk of Ct to terminate all other pending motions,& directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 09/13/12. (ki )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HARLEY G. LAPPIN and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-1902
AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2012, upon consideration of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Malachy E.
Mannion (Doc. 95), recommending that plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint be
dismissed for failure to comply with court order, and, following an independent
review of the record and noting that plaintiff filed objections1 to the report on
July 30, 2012 (Doc. 100), and the court finding Judge Mannion’s analysis to be
thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding plaintiff’s objections to be
without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Mannion’s report (Doc. 95),
particularly in light of the fact that the amended complaint identifies over 75
defendants and numerous incidents which cannot be causally connected by broad
Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are
filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the
report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.
1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires
‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for
those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL
4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).
and bald accusations of conspiracy, and that this pleading does not conform to the
clear dictates of Judge Mannion’s prior order (Doc. 86) granting leave to amend,
and the court finding that: (1) plaintiff personally disregarded the court’s prior
order; (2) plaintiff’s actions were willful and intentional; (3) plaintiff has exhibited
some dilatoriness as described in the magistrate judge’s report; (4) plaintiff’s
adversaries are prejudiced by virtue of plaintiff’s inability to define the parameters
of his claims; (5) plaintiff has been provided ample opportunity to amend and,
therefore, the only remaining effective sanction is dismissal; and (6) the plaintiff’s
claims appear to be frivolous, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d
252, 258 (3d Cir. 2008); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868
(3d Cir. 1984) (listing factors to be considered by district courts prior to dismissal for
failing to comply with court orders and rules), it is hereby ORDERED that:
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mannion (Doc.
95) are ADOPTED.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 94) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE all other pending
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
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?