Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Iacona v. Beard

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


April 25, 2006

CHARLES IACONA AND CEIL IACONA, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DR. JEFFREY BEARD, SUPT. RAYMOND COLLERAN, RHONDA ELLET, AND MICHAEL SKUTACK, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, JANAN LOOMIS, P.A., DR. JOHN DOE, DONALD FISK, AND PHYSICIAN HEALTH CARE CORP., IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE CAPACITIES, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: James F. McClure, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

On November 24, 2004, plaintiff Charles Iacona slipped and fell after showering at the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Waymart ("SCIWaymart"). He suffered a fractured skull as a result of his fall. Iacona was 82 years old at the time of injury.

On June 22, 2005, Charles Iacona, along with his wife Ceil, filed this civil rights action against numerous defendants associated with SCI-Waymart, complaining of, inter alia, the failure to equip the shower with slip-prevention surfaces and failure to render appropriate medical care.

Defendants Beard, Colleran, Ellet, Skutack, and Fiske filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on September 12, 2005 (Rec. Doc. No. 6), and an accompanying brief in support on September 22, 2005 (Rec. Doc. No. 7). On September 29, 2005, defendant Loomis filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and an accompanying brief in support. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 9 & 10.) Certificates of service indicate that these documents were mailed to Charles Iacona at SCIWaymart, and his wife Ceil Iacona at her address in Pittston, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs had not responded to defendants' motions to dismiss, and on March 20, 2006, we issued an order indicating that if plaintiffs failed to oppose defendants' motions to dismiss by April 12, 2006, we would dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with an order of court, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Rec. Doc. No. 11.)

Plaintiffs have not opposed the motions to dismiss.*fn1 Therefore, in accordance with our order dated March 20, 2006, the entire action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of court. This ruling does not operate as an adjudication upon the merits. Defendants' motions to dismiss will be denied as moot.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of court, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Rec. Doc. No. 1.)

2. This ruling does not operate as an adjudication upon the merits.

3. Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied as moot. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 6 & 9.)

4. The clerk is directed to close the case file.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.