Mack v. Travelers Pers. Ins. Co.

Full title: AMIDAH MACK, et al., Plaintiffs v. TRAVELERS PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 6, 2022

3:22-CV-523 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2022)

Opinion

3:22-CV-523

12-06-2022

AMIDAH MACK, et al., Plaintiffs v. TRAVELERS PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants

ROBERT D. MARIANI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

ORDER

ROBERT D. MARIANI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

AND NOW, THIS 6^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022, upon review of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick's Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 27) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the R&R (Doc. 27) is ADOPTED as modified herein:

1. Defendant GEICO Insurance Agency's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the R&R. Plaintiffs' action against Defendant GEICO is DISMISSED.

2. Defendant GEICO Insurance Agency's motions “requesting Court to grant [its] motion to dismiss” (Docs. 21,24) are DEEMED WITHDRAWN for failure to file a supporting brief, in accordance with Local Rule 7.5 of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.¹

1 The Local Rules for the Middle District of Pennsylvania provide that “[w]ithin fourteen (14) days after the filing of any motion, the party filing the motion shall file a brief in support of the motion... If a supporting brief is not filed within the time provided in this rule the motion shall be deemed to be withdrawn. .. ” M.D. Pa. L.R. 7.5. Here, within less than six months, Defendant GEICO filed three motions requesting that the Court dismiss it from the above-captioned action yet, despite Defendant's apparent belief that such requests required immediate attention from the Court, failed to file a brief in support of its second or third motion. (See also, Doc. 26 (letter from GEICO counsel requesting, for the third time in less than two months, that the Court review and grant its motion to dismiss)).

3. The entirety of Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court's Orders and for failure to prosecute this action.²

2 Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's reasoning and conclusion that Plaintiffs have failed to prosecute and have abandoned this action is further supported by Plaintiffs' failure to file any Objections to the pending R&R, despite having been provided a month to do so. The Court also agrees with the R&R's findings that an application of the Poulis factors further supports the dismissal of this action. See Doc. 27, at 11-16; Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984).

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this action.