Filed: Oct. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 10, 2019
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KAROLINE MEHALCHICK , Magistrate Judge . This is a pro se civil action, initiated upon the filing of the complaint in this matter on June 26, 2017. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs, Ileana Rivera and Andrea Ramirez, alleges claims against the following Defendants: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Doc. 1). On June 10, 2019, the undersigned recommended that the complaint be dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 22). On July 8, 2019, the Co
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KAROLINE MEHALCHICK , Magistrate Judge . This is a pro se civil action, initiated upon the filing of the complaint in this matter on June 26, 2017. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs, Ileana Rivera and Andrea Ramirez, alleges claims against the following Defendants: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Doc. 1). On June 10, 2019, the undersigned recommended that the complaint be dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 22). On July 8, 2019, the Cou..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, Magistrate Judge.
This is a pro se civil action, initiated upon the filing of the complaint in this matter on June 26, 2017. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs, Ileana Rivera and Andrea Ramirez, alleges claims against the following Defendants: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Doc. 1).
On June 10, 2019, the undersigned recommended that the complaint be dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 22). On July 8, 2019, the Court adopted the report and recommendation, and ordered that Plaintiffs file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 24). On August 13, 2019, having not received an amended complaint, the Court extended the time to file an amended complaint to September 12, 2019. (Doc. 25). The time for filing an amended complaint has passed, and Plaintiffs has failed to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs have failed to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with the July 8, 2019 Order. (Doc. 24). Plaintiffs' failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Court's Order "makes adjudication of the case impossible." See Azubuko v. Bell Nat'l Org., 243 F. App'x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Pruden v. SCI Camp Hill, 252 F. App'x 436, 438 (3d Cir. 2007) (upholding the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for failure to amend his complaint). Further, a balance of the six factors enumerated in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) dictates dismissal of the action. The six factors include:
(1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party ... was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense.
Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868 (emphasis omitted).
Specifically, the fifth and six Poulis factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal. The effectiveness of alternative sanctions weighs in favor of dismissal, as no viable alternative to dismissal exists given the absence of an operative pleading in this matter. The meritoriousness of Plaintiffs' claims weighs towards dismissal, as the complaint was subject to an initial screening and was dismissed by the Court. (Doc. 22; Doc. 24). Based on the forgoing, it is recommended that the Clerk be directed to close this case.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated October 10, 2019. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
