Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Chapman v. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

July 9, 2010

J. TODD CHAPMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT; ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Chief Magistrate Judge Amy Reynolds Hay

U. S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. Recommendation

It is respectfully recommended that the complaint in the above-captioned case [Dkt. 1] be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

II. Report

The plaintiff, J. Todd Chapman, filed the instant complaint against various officials of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as well as private parties alleging that they have violated a number of his constitutional and civil rights.

On April 27, 2010, this Court issued an order directing plaintiff to complete service and process pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 on or before May 27, 2010, as well as file a completed selection form indicating whether he consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct the proceedings in the case. Having failed to make service or submit the requisite selection form, the Court issued an order on June 17, 2010, directing plaintiff to show cause on or before June 30, 2010, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. To date, plaintiff has still failed to make service or submit the selection form or given any other indication that he wishes to proceed with this action.

It is clear that the punitive dismissal of an action for failure to comply with court orders is left to the discretion of the court. Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369 (3d Cir. 1992). In determining whether an action should be dismissed as a sanction against a party the court must consider six factors. These factors, as set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984), are as follows:

(1) The extent of the party's personal responsibility.

(2) The prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery.

(3) A history of dilatoriness.

(4) Whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith.

(5) The effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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