Opinion
1:17-cv-07752-NLH-AMD
05-17-2023
KINDRA O'BRYANT; BRIAN FLANDERS; and ARTIE PEOPLES Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF GILBERT WILSON "WHIP"; SHERIFF DEPUTY T. NICHOLS; and SHERIFF DEPUTY GURKIN Defendants.
Kindra O'Bryant 1320 Chase Street Plaintiff appearing Pro Se Brian Flanders Plaintiff appearing Pro Se Artie Peoples Plaintiff appearing Pro Se Howard Lane Goldberg, Esq. Krista Schmid, Esq. Office of Camden County Representing Defendants
Kindra O'Bryant 1320 Chase Street Plaintiff appearing Pro Se
Brian Flanders Plaintiff appearing Pro Se
Artie Peoples Plaintiff appearing Pro Se
Howard Lane Goldberg, Esq. Krista Schmid, Esq. Office of Camden County Representing Defendants
OPINION & ORDER
HILLMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings the above-captioned matter after Plaintiffs appealed a ruling by the late Honorable Jerome B. Simandle dismissing their Complaint. See O'Bryant v. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency, 818 Fed.Appx. 143, 144 (3d Cir. 2020); and
WHEREAS, also on June 16, 2020, this matter was reassigned to this Court from the docket of Judge Simandle (ECF No. 52); and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2020, all Defendants except the Camden County Sheriff Defendants again filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (ECF No. 57); and
WHEREAS, upon review of Defendants' renewed Motion, Plaintiffs' Opposition, and Defendants' Reply, this Court determined Moving Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and granted their Motion to Dismiss on February 22, 2021 (ECF Nos. 67, 68); and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2021, Camden County Sheriff Defendants filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 69, 70); and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Opposition to said Motion (ECF No. 71), this Court granted the motion on August 11, 2022 (ECF No. 74), finding the Camden County Sheriff Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the claims against them in their individual capacities must be dismissed but granting Plaintiffs thirty (30) days to amend their Complaint (ECF No. 73); and
WHEREAS, the deadline for Plaintiffs to cure the deficiencies in their Complaint was September 12, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have failed to file an Amended Complaint in accordance with this Court's Order dated August 11, 2022 (ECF No. 74); and
WHEREAS, the court's August 11, 2022 Order specifically warned Plaintiffs that failure to comply with the directive to timely amend “shall result in dismissal with prejudice” (ECF No. 74); and
WHEREAS, to the extent Plaintiffs' most recent filing (ECF No. 75) seeks an extension of time to file an appeal, the instant ruling constitutes a final judgment, thereby triggering the appeal clock in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(a)(1)(A) (“In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4), and 4(c), the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.”); and, WHEREAS, to the extent Plaintiffs' most recent filing (ECF No. 75) seeks recusal of the undersigned on the basis of an adverse ruling, the same is insufficient to warrant relief. See Gilliam v. Cavallaro, No. 22-1458, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4270, at *9 (Feb. 23, 2023) (“[A] party's displeasure with legal rulings does not form an adequate basis for recusal.”) (quoting Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom, Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000)) (cleaned up).
THEREFORE, it is on this 17th day of May, 2023, ORDERED that this matter be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this matter CLOSED.