United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
October 4, 2005.
HARRY LONE WOLF FORD, Plaintiff,
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: A. CAPUTO, District Judge
Plaintiff, Harry Lone Wolf Ford, formerly*fn1 an inmate at
the Greene State Correctional Institution ("SCI-Greene") in
Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, commenced this pro se action with a
civil rights complaint filed pursuant to the provisions of
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court is the motion to
dismiss (Doc. 13) the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
("PBPP") as a Defendant to the action. A brief in support of the
motion was filed contemporaneously. Plaintiff filed no response,
nor brief in opposition. By Order dated August 16, 2005 (Doc.
22), this Court directed Plaintiff to file a brief in opposition
to the PBPP's motion to dismiss within twenty (20) days. The
Order of August 16, 2005 forewarned Plaintiff that if he failed
to file a brief within the required time period, the Court would
deem the motion unopposed and grant it without a merits analysis.
Although the deadline for filing an opposing brief has passed,
Plaintiff has neither filed a brief in opposition to Defendants'
motion, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to do
so. In Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir.
1991), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a
motion to dismiss should not be granted simply because it is
unopposed. However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals did not
preclude dismissal based upon an unopposed motion, after adequate
warning. "We do not suggest that the district court may never
rely on the local rule to treat a motion to dismiss as unopposed
and subject to a dismissal without a merits analysis . . . Nor do
we suggest that if a party fails to comply with the rule after a
specific direction to comply from the court, the rule cannot be
invoked." Id. Plaintiff was advised of the requirements of
Local Rule 7.6 by both the standing practice order (Doc. 5)
issued in this case on March 2, 2004, and the August 16, 2005
Order. He was specifically notified that failure to comply with
Local Rule 7.6 by filing a brief in opposition would result in
dismissal. Consequently, the Court will grant the PBPP's motion
to dismiss without a merits analysis. See M.D. Pa. Local Rule
7.6; Stackhouse 951 F.2d at 30 (3d Cir. 1991).
ACCORDINGLY, THIS 4th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT the unopposed motion to dismiss the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Doc. 13) as a
Defendant to this action is GRANTED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.