Miller v. United States, 3:18-CV-2456. (2020)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20200107836
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 02, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 02, 2020
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 2nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2020, upon review of Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 33) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 33) is ADOPTED for the reasons stated therein. 2. Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED for failure to comply with the Court's Orders and for failure to prosecute this action. 1 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 2nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2020, upon review of Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 33) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 33) is ADOPTED for the reasons stated therein. 2. Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED for failure to comply with the Court's Orders and for failure to prosecute this action. 1 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this a..
More
ORDER
ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge.
AND NOW, THIS 2nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2020, upon review of Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 33) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R (Doc. 33) is ADOPTED for the reasons stated therein.
2. Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED for failure to comply with the Court's Orders and for failure to prosecute this action.1
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this action.
FootNotes
1. Chief Judge Schwab's reasoning and conclusion that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and has abandoned this action is further supported by Plaintiff's failure to file any Objections to the pending R&R despite two-and-a-half months having passed since its issuance on October 18, 2019.
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. 33, at 7-11; Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984).
Source: Leagle
