From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walters v. Diehl

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Dec 23, 2024
Civil Action 3:24-26 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 3:24-26

12-23-2024

CHRISTOPHER WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN DIEHL, PATTON BORROW POLICE, and PATTON BORROWN EMT, Defendants.


Kezia O. L. Taylor Magistrate Judge

ORDER OF COURT

Nora Barry Fischer Senior U.S. District Judge

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2024, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kezia O. L. Taylor dated October 30, 2024, (Docket No. 42), recommending that Plaintiff Christopher Walters' Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court Orders, after conducting a detailed analysis of all of the relevant factors under Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), and ordering that any objections be filed within 14 days such that objections were due from non-ECF users like Plaintiff by November 18, 2024, and no objections having been filed by the date of this Order, and upon independent review of the record and de novo consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation of October 30, 2024, which is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Docket No. 3) is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case and the relevant factors under Poulis set forth by the Magistrate Judge, including, among other things, that Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's Show Cause Order of September 26, 2024 directing him to show cause why the action should not be dismissed due to his failure to provide an updated address upon his release from custody, and such facts are further buttressed by Plaintiff's failure to file objections to the Report and Recommendation of November 18, 2024 by the established deadline nor through the date of this Order;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending Motions to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 11, 13) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 24) are DENIED, as moot;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED; and, FINALLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Walters v. Diehl

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Dec 23, 2024
Civil Action 3:24-26 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2024)
Case details for

Walters v. Diehl

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN DIEHL, PATTON BORROW POLICE, and…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 3:24-26 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2024)