From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Durah v. Rustin

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Oct 10, 2006
Civil Action No. 05-1709 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-1709.

October 10, 2006


ORDER


On December 13, 2005, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 8) filed on September 13, 2006, recommended that the Complaint in this case be dismissed due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action. Service was made on the Plaintiff at the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, which is the address of record on the docket. Plaintiff was advised he had (10) days from the date of service to file objections. No objections to the report and recommendation were filed. After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the report and recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 10th day of October, 2006;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint in this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute this action.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 8) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated September 13, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the court.


Summaries of

Durah v. Rustin

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Oct 10, 2006
Civil Action No. 05-1709 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2006)
Case details for

Durah v. Rustin

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES DURAH, Plaintiff, v. RAMONE RUSTIN, Warden, B. HALT, Corrections…

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

Date published: Oct 10, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 05-1709 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2006)

Citing Cases

Wormack v. Shinseki

The Poulis factors, however, do not provide a "magic formula whereby the decision to dismiss or not to…

Vessio v. Saw Creek Estates Cmty. Ass'n, Inc.

If Vessio's mailing address is no longer accurate, he is obligated to inform the Court and Defendants of such…