Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-29-2007 Tillio v. Mendelsohn Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-1123 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Tillio v. Mendelsohn" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 174. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/174 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 07-1123 __________ PATRICK D. TILLIO, SR. Appellant v. JULES MENDELSOHN ____________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D. C. No. 06-cv-01977) District Judge: Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe ______________________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 25, 2007 Before: BARRY, CHAGARES AND ROTH, Circuit Judges Opinion filed November 29, 2007 __________ OPINION ___________ PER CURIAM Appellant Patrick D. Tillio, Sr. appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his pro se complaint for failure to prosecute. We will affirm. In May 2006, Tillio filed a pro se complaint apparently arising out of the tax sale of his property. The next month, Tillio attempted to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint. No further activity in the case occurred until November 28, 2006, when the District Court ordered Tillio to show cause within 14 days why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Tillio failed to respond, and the District Court dismissed the action on December 20, 2006. This timely appeal followed. Even according Tillio the special consideration afforded to pro se litigants, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. After several months of inactivity, the District Court directed Tillio to show cause why the case should not be dismissed, warned him that failure to comply with its show cause order could result in dismissal, and provided him an opportunity to respond. Tillio has not explained his failure to prosecute this action, and there is no indication that he failed to receive the show cause order or that he did not understand it. For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing the case. 2