Summary
finding plaintiff's refusal to advance case prejudicial to defendants because they were unable to perform discovery and the time for discovery had passed
Summary of this case from Gibbs v. ElliottOpinion
Civil Action Number: 09-02460.
June 30, 2011
OPINION
This is a diversity action brought by Plaintiff Marilyn Joyce against Defendants Continental Airlines, Inc. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Joyce alleges that she was injured in a Continental Airlines terminal in Newark Liberty International Airport, an entity which Joyce asserts is owned and operated by the Port Authority. Before the Court is a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Falk dismissing this action sua sponte for failure to prosecute this case. No timely objections have been filed. For the reasons elaborated below the Court adopts the report and recommendation, and will DISMISS this action.
I. BACKGROUND
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
pro se sua sponte de novo 28 U.S.C. § 63672Mersmann v. Continental Airlines335 F. Supp. 2d 544547
However, where, as here, no objections are made in regard to a report or parts thereof, the district court will adopt the report and accept the recommendation if it is "satisf[ied] . . . that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 Advisory Committee's Notes (citation omitted); see Peerless Ins. Co. v. Ambi-Rad, Ltd., 2009 WL 790898, at *4 (D.N.J. March 23, 2009) (same).
III. DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge issued a thorough, lucid, and well-reasoned report, examining the propriety of dismissal where a Plaintiff willfully abandons her case, and the propriety of dismissal under the Third Circuit's multi-factor balancing test, which has application where a party fails to obey a court order. See Poulis v. State Farm Cas. Co., F.3d 863 (3d Cir. 1984).
The Court sees no error, much less clear error, with regard to the Magistrate Judge's recitation of the facts, the legal rule applied, or the application of the law to these facts. The Court also notes that Plaintiff was expressly warned that her failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge's order may lead to dismissal. (Doc. No. 26.)
IV. CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons elaborated above, the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation, and DISMISSES this action. An appropriate order follows.