UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LOUIS BANKS, :

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-04-518

:

: (Judge McClure) 

DEPUTY WARDEN O’MARA, :

ET AL., :

Defendants :

ORDER

January 19, 2006

Louis Banks initiated this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 regarding his confinement at the Adams County Prison, Gettysburg,

Pennsylvania. 

On November 15, 2005, Banks was granted thirty (30) days in which to file

an opposing brief to Remaining Defendant Tyler’s pending motion to dismiss or,

in the alternative for summary judgment. The Order forewarned that absent

extraordinary circumstances, failure to submit a timely opposing brief would result

in dismissal of his case.

Case 4:04-cv-00518-JFM-JVW Document 30 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 4
2

By Order dated December 16, 2005, Plaintiff’s motion requesting an

enlargement of time in which to respond to Tyler’s pending dispositive motion was

granted. The Order again forewarned Banks that failure to file a timely opposing

brief would result in dismissal of his case against Tyler pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b).

Discussion

 The relevant time period established by the December 16, 2005 Order has

passed and Banks has again failed to respond to the pending dispositive motion

nor sought a further enlargement of time in which to do so. Failure to prosecute an

action may warrant dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which

in pertinent part, provides:

For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any

Order of Court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any

claim against the defendant. Unless the Court in its Order for dismissal

otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision ... operates as an

adjudication on the merits. The granting of an unopposed summary

judgment motion is within the discretion of the court. 

In Poulis the Third Circuit instructed the district court to consider six (6)

factors in considering whether to dismiss a complaint with prejudice where the

plaintiff’s counsel failed to conduct discovery and file a pre-trial statement within

deadlines set by the Court: (1) extent of the party’s personal involvement; (2)

Case 4:04-cv-00518-JFM-JVW Document 30 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 4
prejudice to the opposing party by the dilatoriness; (3) whether a history of

dilatoriness existed; (4) whether the dilatoriness was wilful and in bad faith; (5)

possible effectiveness of alternative sanctions; and (6) the merit of the claim or

defense. See Adams v. Trustees, NJ Brewery Trust Fund, 29 F.3d 863 (3d Cir.

1994). Based on the Plaintiff’s prolonged failure to submit a response to the

Remaining Defendant’s dispositive motion, an application of the Poulis factors

weighs in favor of dismissal.

The Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s December 16, 2005 Order

is deemed a failure to prosecute and the remainder of his action is hereby

dismissed, with prejudice. Consequently,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Order of December 16,

2005, is deemed a failure to prosecute this action.

2. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), 

Plaintiff’s remaining claims are hereby dismissed, with

prejudice.

3. Remaining Defendant Tyler’s motion for summary judgment

(Record document no. 24) is dismissed as moot.

Case 4:04-cv-00518-JFM-JVW Document 30 Filed 01/19/06 Page 3 of 4
4

4. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

5. Any appeal from this order will be deemed frivolous, 

without probable cause and not taken in good faith.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00518-JFM-JVW Document 30 Filed 01/19/06 Page 4 of 4