In re Howarth

Full title: In Re: LESLIE PAUL HOWARTH cases

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 24, 2005

C.A. No. 05-21J, -38J, -69J, -70J, -71J, -72J, -75J, -76J, -77J, -78J, -79J, -80J, -81J, -82J, -83J, -86J, -87J, -88J, -89J, -90J, -91J, -92J, -93J, -94J, -95J, -96J, -97J, -98J, -99J, -100J, -101J, -102J, -103J, -104J, -105J, -106J, -107J, -108J, -109J, -110J, -111J, -112J, -113J, -114J, -115J, -116J, -117J, -118J, -119J, -120J, -121J, -122J, -123J, -124J, -125J, -126J, -127J, -128J, -129J, -130J, -131J, -132J, -133J, -134J, -135J, -136J, -137J, -138J, -139J, -140J, -141J, -148J, -149J, -150J, -151J, -152J, -153J, -154J, -155J, -156J, -157J, -158J, -159J, -160J, -161J, -162J, -168J, -169J, -180J, -197J, -198J, -199J, -200J (W.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2005)

Opinion

C.A. No. 05-21J, -38J, -69J, -70J, -71J, -72J, -75J, -76J, -77J, -78J, -79J, -80J, -81J, -82J, -83J, -86J, -87J, -88J, -89J, -90J, -91J, -92J, -93J, -94J, -95J, -96J, -97J, -98J, -99J, -100J, -101J, -102J, -103J, -104J, -105J, -106J, -107J, -108J, -109J, -110J, -111J, -112J, -113J, -114J, -115J, -116J, -117J, -118J, -119J, -120J, -121J, -122J, -123J, -124J, -125J, -126J, -127J, -128J, -129J, -130J, -131J, -132J, -133J, -134J, -135J, -136J, -137J, -138J, -139J, -140J, -141J, -148J, -149J, -150J, -151J, -152J, -153J, -154J, -155J, -156J, -157J, -158J, -159J, -160J, -161J, -162J, -168J, -169J, -180J, -197J, -198J, -199J, -200J.

October 24, 2005

MEMORANDUM ORDER

GARY LANCASTER, District Judge

These matters were referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and subsections 3 and 4 of Local Rule 72.1 for Magistrate Judges.

The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on October 5, 2005, recommending that the complaints be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

The parties (the plaintiff and those defendants who had entered an appearance) were notified that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had ten days to serve and file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No one has filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.

After review of the records of this matter together with the Report and Recommendation, and noting the lack of timely objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 20^th day of October, 2005, it is

ORDERED that the complaints in the above-numbered cases are dismissed. The Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. The Clerk shall mark these matters closed.