UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 1, 2007
LARRY DANCY, PLAINTIFF
MR. COLLIER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edwin M. Kosik United States District Judge
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS
Plaintiff, Larry Dancy, an inmate currently confined at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg (USP-Lewisburg), Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights action on November 30, 2006, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. 1.) Named as defendants are eight (8) Bureau of Prisons employees currently or formerly at USPLewisburg or the United States Penitentiary at Allenwood. On March 26, 2007, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 15.) A supporting brief and record were thereafter submitted in support of the motion. (Docs. 22, 23.) A response to defendants' motion was due to be filed by plaintiff on or before April 23, 2007. 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 in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and M.D. Pa. LR 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 1st DAY OF MAY, 2007, IT IS HEREBY
1. The plaintiff is afforded twenty (20) days from the date of this Order to respond to the defendants' pending motion in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and M.D. Pa. LR 56.1.
2. Failure to timely respond to the defendants' motion will result in the motion being deemed unopposed.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.