DESPOT v. THE BALTIMORE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM ORDER. The moving-Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 22 , 32 , 35 , 40 , 57 & 62 ) are GRANTED; the claims against the non-moving Defendants are DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to timely serve; and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 69 ) hereby is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 8/4/16. (dcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID DESPOT,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE BALTIMORE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 15-1672
Judge Cathy Bissoon
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Robert C. Mitchell for pretrial
proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636 and Local Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.
On June 28 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report (Doc. 69) recommending that the
various Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 22, 32, 35, 40, 57 & 62) be granted, and that the
non-moving Defendants be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to make timely service. The Report
and Recommendation was served on the parties, and Plaintiff has filed Objections. See Doc. 70.
After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the
Report and Recommendation and the Objections thereto, the following Order is entered:
The moving-Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 22, 32, 35, 40, 57 & 62)
are GRANTED; the claims against the non-moving Defendants are DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s

failure to timely serve; and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation hereby is
adopted as the Opinion of the District Court.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 4, 2016

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All counsel of record
cc (via First-Class, U.S. Mail):
David Despot
100 Elizabeth Drive
Apt. 1102
Pittsburgh, PA 15220

Plaintiff already has enjoyed one opportunity to amend his pleadings, see Doc. 51, and his
Objections do not request further leave to amend. Even if he had, the R&R intimates, and the
undersigned agrees, that allowing further amendment would be an exercise in futility. See R&R
at 6-7 (highlighting that numerous courts have called to Plaintiff’s attention the deficiencies of
his pleadings practices, and no subsequent ameliorative effects have attached); cf. also id. at 1127 (revealing that most, if not all, of Plaintiff’s claims suffer from fundamental flaws in legal
reasoning and understanding, such that they could not properly be cured by amendment).
Thus, the dismissal of the claims against the moving Defendants is made with prejudice.
1