UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
September 21, 2006
DANA E. YOUNG, SR., PLAINTIFF
DENNIS J. KAZMENSKI, D.D.S., ROBERT MOCZULSKI, D.D.S., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edwin M. Kosik United States District Judge
Plaintiff, Dana E. Young, Sr., filed this civil rights action on November 25, 2005, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. (Doc. 1). On August 16, 2006, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. (Doc. 17). A supporting brief was filed on the same date. (Doc. 18). A response to defendants' motion was due to be filed by plaintiff on or before August 31, 2006. As of this date, plaintiff has neither submitted any opposition to the motion, nor requested an enlargement of time within which to do so.
The court is cognizant of the special difficulties facing pro se litigants. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has emphasized that local rules play "a vital role in the district courts' efforts to manage themselves and their dockets." Eash v Riggins Trucking, Inc., 757 F.2d 557, 570 (3d Cir. 1985). Therefore, the court will afford the plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and MDPA Local Rule 56.1. Failure to do so will result in the motion being deemed unopposed. See Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29 (3d Cir. 1991).
NOW, THEREFORE, THIS 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2006,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The plaintiff is afforded twenty (20) days from the date of this Order to respond to the defendants' pending motion for summary judgment in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and MDPA Local Rule 56.1;
2. Failure to timely respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment will result in the motion being deemed unopposed.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.