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.

Smith v. Reddinger

United States District Court, Third Circuit

October 18, 2013

ANTOINE SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER REDDINGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MAUREEN P. KELLY, District Judge.

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Amended Complaint filed in the above-captioned case, ECF No. 35, be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

II. REPORT

Plaintiff, Antoine Smith, has presented an amended civil rights complaint against Defendant Officer Reddinger, alleging that Defendant violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in the course of his incarceration at the State Corrections Institution at Pine Grove, when Defendant Reddinger allegedly used excessive force against Plaintiff, slamming him into a counter top wall and causing injury to Plaintiff's neck.

On June 24, 2013, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file his response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment no later than August 5, 2013. Subsequently, on August 27, 2013, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause, returnable on September 10, 2013, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to file his opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as directed. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond 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 alternative sanctions.
(6) The meritoriousness of the claim or defense.

Consideration of these factors suggests that the instant action ...


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.