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.

Ivanitch v. Donuts

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

November 12, 2019

HOLLY IVANITCH Plaintiff
v.
DUNKIN DONUTS Defendant

          ORDER

          MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle (“Report”) (Doc. 16), which recommends that the plaintiff Holly Ivanitch's (“Ivanitch”) amended complaint, (Doc. 6), be dismissed or, alternatively, that the defendant Dunkin Donuts' (“Defendant”)[1] motion to dismiss, (Doc. 12), be granted as unopposed. No objections have been filed to the Report. Based on the court's review of the record and pleadings in this matter, the Report is adopted in part, Ivanitch's amended complaint, (Doc. 6), is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and the Defendant's motion to dismiss, (Doc. 12), is dismissed as moot.

         When no objections are made to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); M.D.Pa. L.R. 72.31.

         On September 12, 2018, Ivanitch, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the Defendant alleging discrimination. (Doc. 1). On December 28, 2018, Judge Arbuckle issued an order, (Doc. 5), permitting Ivanitch to proceed in forma pauperis. In his order, Judge Arbuckle also observed that Ivanitch's complaint, among other things, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, but permitted her “an opportunity to cure the deficiencies noted” by filing an amended complaint by January 31, 2019. (Doc. 5, at 2).

         Ivanitch filed a timely amended complaint. (Doc. 6). On May 6, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, (Doc. 12), arguing that Ivanitch failed to establish a prima facie case of reverse race discrimination. On May 13, 2019, Judge Arbuckle issued an order directing Ivanitch to file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss and warned that the failure to do so could result in the Defendant's motion being deemed unopposed or in dismissal of the case. (Doc. 14). Ivanitch failed to comply with the order and, on May 30, 2019, Judge Arbuckle issued another order, which contained the same warnings but, this time, gave Ivanitch until June 14, 2019, to file the brief in opposition. (Doc. 15). Ivanitch once again failed to file a brief in opposition.

         On October 23, 2019, Judge Arbuckle issued the instant Report. In it, Judge Arbuckle recommends that the Defendant's motion to dismiss, (Doc. 12), be granted as unopposed pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, [2] given Ivanitch's failure to file a brief in opposition despite the court's orders warning of the consequences of failing to do so. In the alternative, the Report recommends that Ivanitch's amended complaint, (Doc. 6), be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b)[3] for failure to prosecute, since all Poulis factors[4] weigh in favor of dismissal.

         The court has reviewed the Report of Judge Arbuckle, as well as the complaint, the amended complaint, the motion to dismiss, and the orders, and the court will adopt the Report insofar as it recommends dismissal of the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Upon review of Judge Arbuckle's thorough analysis of the six Poulis factors, the court agrees with the sound reasoning that led him to conclude that all factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this case. As such, the court adopts that portion of the Report of Judge Arbuckle as the opinion of the court.

         NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

         (1) The Report of Judge Arbuckle, (Doc. 9), is ADOPTED IN PART;

         (2) Ivanitch's amended complaint, (Doc. 6), is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b);

         (3) The Defendant's motion to dismiss, (Doc. 12), is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and

         (4) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

---------


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.