IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
April 17, 2007
GENNARO RAUSO, PLAINTIFF
CHARLES ZIMMERMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2007, upon consideration of the order of court dated March 22, 2007 (Doc. 324), directing pro se plaintiff to file on or before April 13, 2007, a response showing cause why the above-captioned action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and it appearing that as of the date of this order plaintiff has not filed such a response, see FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) ("For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant."); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) as permitting sua sponte dismissals by the court); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984) (identifying six factors relevant to deciding whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute),*fn1 and the court finding that pro se plaintiff was advised of the necessity of responding to the order of court dated March 22, 2007 and is personally responsible for failing to do so, see id. at 868 (identifying "extent of the party's personal responsibility" as a factor), that plaintiff's conduct has prejudiced defendants by requiring defendants to assume the cost of continued preparation for trial, see id. (identifying "[p]rejudice to the adversary" as a factor), that plaintiff's failure to appear for the pretrial conference in the above-captioned case and to respond to the order of court dated March 22, 2007 constitutes a history of dilatoriness, see id. (identifying "history of dilatoriness" as a factor), that plaintiff's failure to respond when he was specifically ordered to do so constitutes willful disregard of the court's authority, see id. at 868-69 (identifying "willful" or "bad faith" conduct as a factor), and that plaintiff's remaining claimsare likely withoutmerit, (see Doc. 317 at 13-16); Poulis, 747 F.2d at 869-70 (identifying "[m]eritoriousness of the claim" as a factor), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge