Case ID: f-appx_256/html/0509-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patrick D. TILLIO, Sr., Appellant v. Jules MENDELSOHN.
    No. 07-1123.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 25, 2007.
    Filed Nov. 29, 2007.
    Patrick D. Tillio, Sr., Haverford, PA, pro se.
    Before: BARRY, CHAGARES AND ROTH, Circuit Judges.
   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.