CARTER v. WINTRUBA et al

Filing 45

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. The Motion to Dismiss to be Treated as a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) filed on behalf of Police Officer James M. Wintruba, Police Officer John Sopcak, Police Officer Ian Strang and the Borough of Homestead, the Moti on to Dismiss (ECF No. 35) filed on behalf of the Borough of West Homestead and the West Homestead Police Department, and Police Officer Jason Trouts Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 6/27/2014. (MJL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JASON L. CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
POLICE OFFICER WINTRUBA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2: 13-cv-00806
United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy

ORDER OF COURT1
On June 9, 2014, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion analyzing Plaintiff Jason L.
Carter’s failure to respond to several dispositive motions according to the standards enunciated in
Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1994), finding:
At least four of the six Poulis factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissal.
Accordingly, this action should be dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff's failure
to prosecute.
Out of an abundance of caution, however, this Court will give Plaintiff one
final opportunity to respond to the dispositive motions on or before June 23, 2014.
Failing to do so, this Court will enter an order dismissing his case with prejudice
and without further notice.
Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 44), at 6.
Plaintiff has not responded nor has he sought any enlargements of time within which to
respond. The Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned his claims, and this case will therefore be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Under the Federal Magistrate Judges Act (“the Act), a Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction may be conferred
by consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Consent of all parties to a case gives the magistrate
judge full “authority over dispositive motions, conduct of trial, and entry of final judgment, all without
district court review.” Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 585 (2003); In re Search of Scranton Hous. Auth.,
487 F.Supp.2d 530, 535 (M.D.Pa. 2007). “[S]o long as consent [to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction] is clear
and unambiguous, it is effective.” In re Search of Scranton Hous. Auth., 487 F.Supp.2d at 535; Roell, 538
U.S. at 591 (consent may be inferred from parties’ actions). All parties have filed election forms
consenting to jurisdiction before a United States Magistrate Judge.
1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, this 27th day of June, 2014, that the Motion to Dismiss to be
Treated as a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) filed on behalf of Police Officer
James M. Wintruba, Police Officer John Sopcak, Police Officer Ian Strang and the Borough of
Homestead, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 35) filed on behalf of the Borough of West
Homestead and the West Homestead Police Department, and Police Officer Jason Trout’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) are DENIED AS MOOT.
This case is dismissed and the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case closed.

Date: June 27, 2014

s/ Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge

cc:
Jason L. Carter
153 Rosewood Street
Washington, PA 15301

2