RAWLS v. GIBBS et al
ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 7) with prejudice; dismissing as moot 19 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Clerk is to mark this CASE CLOSED. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days in which to file a notice of appeal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on June 29, 2017. (kcc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MR. GIBBS, MICHAEL GUYTON,
ROBERT D. GILMORE, MR.
CUMBERLEDGE, and CAPTAIN
Civil Action No. 16 – 1438
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pup Lenihan
On February 23, 2017, the Defendants in this case filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
19), and the Court ordered Plaintiff to either respond to the Motion or file an Amended
Complaint by March 17, 2017, (ECF No. 21). As of June 2, 2017, no response had been
received. The Court then entered an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed
for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff was ordered to respond to the Show Cause
Order no later than June 23, 2017. As of today, no response has been received. The Court
therefore assumes that Plaintiff wishes to abandon this action. Accordingly, this 29h day of June
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Complaint (ECF No. 7) is dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is
dismissed as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this case CLOSED.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, Petitioner has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by
Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
/s/ Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Lisa Pupo Lenihan
United States Magistrate Judge
cc: Sameech Rawls
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370-8089
Counsel for Defendants
(Via CM/ECF electronic mail)
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?