THOMPSON v. HENS-GRECO et al
Filing
143
MEMORANDUM ORDER dismissing defendants JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10 for failure to prosecute and adopting 142 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lenihan as the opinion of the Court. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 12/8/17. (njt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dwayne Thompson, individually, and on
behalf of his minor daughter "RMT" and
Pamela McDeavitt,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Kathryn M. Hens-Greco; Kimberly Berkeley
Clark, Krista Abram; Shane Mock; Jonathan
Voelker; Pernille Frankmar; Voelker &
Colton, LLC; Lauren Darbouze; Reserve
Township Police; Brian Tully; Fred Boory Jr;
Pittsburgh Municipal Court; Barbara Clements;
Allegheny County; Patrick Quinn; Christopher
Connors; Geraldine M. Redic; Claire Capristo;
Allegheny County Sheriffs Department;
Anthony Fratto; Holly Zemba; Allegheny County
Department of Court Records; Allegheny County
Office of Children and Youth Services;
Bruce Noel; Brynn Alpee; McKeesport Area
School District; Fifth Judicial District; and
John and Jane Does, 1-10,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:16cvl 100
Electronic Filing
District Judge Cercone
Magistrate Judge Lenihan
ECF Nos. 142
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This civil action was commenced on July 25, 2016, when Plaintiff Dwayne Thompson
filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) That motion was granted
and the Complaint (ECF No. 2) was docketed on July 26, 2016. The case was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the
Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(l), and Local Rules of Court 72.C and 72.D.
On October 24, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order that Plaintiff, no later than
November 14, 2017, file a document with the court indicating whether he intends to proceed
against the unidentified John and Jane Doe Defendants 1-.l 0, and if so, indicating what role they
played and what federal rights of Plaintiff they violated. The Magistrate Judge further indicated
that if Plaintiff failed to file this document by November 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge would
issue a report and recommendation that the John and Jane Doe Defendants 1-10 be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. No such document has been filed by Plaintiff to date.
On November 20, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 142) recommending that the John and Jane Doe Defendants 1-10 be dismissed for failure to
prosecute pursuant to Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Service was made on
Plaintiff via first class mail to his address of record, and to all attorneys of record via electronic
filing. The parties were informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(l)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, that they had fourteen (14)
days to file any objections, and that unregistered ECF users were given an additional three (3)
days pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6( d). No objections have been filed.
After review of the documents in the case, together with the Report and
Recommendation, the
,_
follow~ Order
AND NOW, this
is entered:
_i_ day of December, 2017,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 142) of
Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated November 20, 2017, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court and
the John and Jane Doe Defendants 1-10 are DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.
David Stewart Cercone
United States District Judge
2
cc:
Dwayne Thompson
1013 Coal Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
(Via First Class Mail)
Caroline Liebenguth, Esquire
Dennis J. Roman, Esquire
Charlene S. Seibert, Esquire
Timothy R. Stienstraw, Esquire
Lauren D. Darbouze, Esquire
Ashley N. Rodgers, Esquire
Daniel R. Bentz, Esquire
Benjamin T.S. Trodden, Esquire
Lisa G. Michel, Esquire
Anthony G. Sanchez, Esquire
(Via CMIECF Electronic Mail)
3
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?