1

Plaintiff misidentified Defendant Aramark Correctional Services as Aramark

Food Services in the Complaint. (See Rec. Doc. Nos. 13, 14.) Pursuant to our April

26, 2010 Order, the Clerk of Court corrected the docket to reflect that the correct name

of the Defendant is Aramark Correctional Services. (See Rec. Doc. No. 17.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALONZO MAYFIELD, :

 :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL NO. 4:10-CV-0020

 :

v. : (Judge McClure)

 :

COLUMBIA COUNTY PRISON, et al., :

 :

 Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM

August 9, 2010

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Alonzo Mayfield, an inmate presently confined at the Houtzdale State

Correctional Institution (“SCI Houtzdale”) in Houtzdale, Pennsylvania, initiated the

above action pro se by filing a Complaint under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(Rec. Doc. No. 1.) Named as Defendants are the Columbia County Prison, Warden

William Campbell, Correctional Officer Frye, and Aramark Correctional Services1

. 

Mayfield alleges that, while he was confined at the Columbia County Prison in

Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, he received Kosher meals during the first week of

Case 4:10-cv-00020-JFM-SF Document 26 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 8
2

November 2009 because he was informed that “true Halal” meals were unavailable;

Warden Campbell declined to organize an Eid Ul Adha celebration; and Correctional

Officer Frye made derogatory statements during Jumah prayer. (See Rec. Doc. No. 1

§ IV.) 

Service of the Complaint was directed by Order dated March 11, 2010. (Rec.

Doc. No. 10.) Thereafter, motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint were filed on

behalf of Defendant Aramark Correctional Services (Rec. Doc. No. 18) and

Defendants Campbell, Frye, and the Columbia County Prison (“Corrections

Defendants”) (Rec. Doc. No. 19). Defendant Aramark filed a supporting brief on June

1, 2010 (Rec. Doc. No. 22) and Corrections Defendants filed a supporting brief on

May 18, 2010 (Rec. Doc. No. 20). 

 Plaintiff requested and was given an extension of time to file his opposition to 

the pending motions by Order dated June 14, 2010. (See Rec. Doc. Nos. 23, 24.) 

After Plaintiff failed to timely file his opposition by the July 6, 2010 extended

deadline, by Order dated July 13, 2010 he was sua sponte given a further extension

until July 21, 2010 to file his opposition along with a warning that his failure to timely

file his opposition may result in the motions being deemed unopposed and granted

without a merits analysis. (Rec. Doc. No. 25.) Although nearly two (2) weeks have

passed since Plaintiff’s opposition to the two motions to dismiss was due, he neither

Case 4:10-cv-00020-JFM-SF Document 26 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 8
3

has filed his opposition nor requested a further extension of time in which to do so.

 Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, the motions will be deemed

unopposed and granted without a merits analysis, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be

dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court

order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and the Clerk of Court will

be directed to close this case.

II. DISCUSSION

Generally, a dispositive motion may not be granted merely because it is 

unopposed. However, when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order,

the court may dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). In Link, the

Supreme Court stated:

The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action with

prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.

[footnote omitted] The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in

order to prevent undue delays in disposition of pending cases and to

avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts. The power is of

ancient origin, having its roots in judgments of nonsuit and non

prosequitur entered at common law . . . . It has been expressly recognized

in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) . . . .

Id. at 629-30. 

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held in Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951

Case 4:10-cv-00020-JFM-SF Document 26 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 8
2

The Court of Appeals in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d

863 (3d Cir. 1984) identified six factors that are appropriate to consider before

dismissing a case for the plaintiff's late filing of a pretrial statement. The six factors

are: (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;

(continued...)

4

F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991), that a district court should not dismiss a civil rights

complaint brought by a former prisoner for failure to comply with a local rule

requiring a response to a dispositive motion without examining the merits of the

complaint. However, in reaching this holding, the Court of Appeals did not vitiate the

Supreme Court's decision in Link, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

or the inherent power of the district court to impose the sanction of dismissal for

failing to comply with a court order. Instead, the Court of Appeals specifically stated:

In reaching our result, we do not suggest that the district court may never

rely on the local rule to treat a motion to dismiss as unopposed and

subject to dismissal without a merits analysis. There may be some cases

where failure of a party to oppose a motion will indicate that the motion

is in fact not opposed, particularly if the party is represented by an

attorney and in that situation the rule may be appropriately invoked. Nor

do we suggest that if a party fails to comply with the rule after a specific

direction to comply from the court, the rule cannot be invoked.

Stackhouse, 951 F.2d at 30 (emphasis added); see also Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d

1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992) (“Poulis did not provide a magic formula whereby the

decision to dismiss or not to dismiss a plaintiff's complaint becomes a mechanical

calculation ... [N]ot all of the Poulis factors2

 need be satisfied in order to dismiss a

Case 4:10-cv-00020-JFM-SF Document 26 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 8
2

(...continued)

(3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or attorney 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.

3

Local Rule 7.6 provides that a party opposing a motion must file a brief in

opposition to the motion within fourteen (14) days, and that if the opposition is not

filed within the required time, he or she will be deemed not to oppose the moving

party’s motion.

5

complaint . . . Instead, the decision must be made in the context of the district court's

extended contact with the litigant. Ultimately, the decision to dismiss constitutes an

exercise of the district court judge's discretion and must be given great deference by

[the Court of Appeals].”).

In the instant case, Mayfield was advised of the requirements of Local Rule 7.63

in the Standing Practice Order issued in this case on January 6, 2010 (See Rec. Doc.

No. 4.) Further, he specifically was directed to comply with Local Rule 7.6in our June

14, 2010 and July 13, 2010 Orders directing him to file his opposition briefs, and was

warned of the consequences of failing to timely file his opposition in the latter order. 

The Court finds that Mayfield’s dilatoriness outweighs any of the other considerations

set forth in Poulis. (See supra n. 2.) Accordingly, we will deem the pending motions

to dismiss to be unopposed and grant the motions, dismiss the Complaint in this action

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute

Case 4:10-cv-00020-JFM-SF Document 26 Filed 08/09/10 Page 5 of 8
6

and for failure to comply with a court order, and direct that this case be closed. An

appropriate Order follows.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 4:10-cv-00020-JFM-SF Document 26 Filed 08/09/10 Page 6 of 8
ALONZO MAYFIELD, :

 :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL NO. 4:10-CV-0020

 :

v. : (Judge McClure)

 :

COLUMBIA COUNTY PRISON, et al., :

 :

 Defendants. :

ORDER

August 9, 2010

In accordance with the foregoing Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

THAT:

1. The unopposed motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Defendant Aramark

Correctional Services (Rec. Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED.

2. The unopposed motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Defendants 

Campbell, Frye, and the Columbia County Prison (“Corrections Defendants”) (Rec.

Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply

with a court order.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

5. Any appeal from this Order will be deemed frivolous, without probable 

Case 4:10-cv-00020-JFM-SF Document 26 Filed 08/09/10 Page 7 of 8
cause, and not taken in good faith.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00020-JFM-SF Document 26 Filed 08/09/10 Page 8 of 8