IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JASON Q. LUCAS, :

 :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL NO. 4:09-CV-2031

 :

v. : (Judge McClure)

 :

WARDEN RALPH B. REISH, et al., :

 :

 Defendants. :

 :

MEMORANDUM

August 9, 2010

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jason Q. Lucas, a former inmate at the Northumberland County Prison

in Sunbury, Pennsylvania, initiated the above civil rights action through counsel by

filing a Complaint under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Rec. Doc. No. 1.) 

Named as Defendants are Warden Ralph B. Reish, Deputy Warden John N. Conrad,

Counselor Mary Jo Christiano, and a John Doe Correctional Officer. Service of the

Complaint was directed by Order dated December 18, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 3.) 

Motions to dismiss the Complaint have been filed on behalf of Defendants

Christiano (Rec. Doc. No. 13), Reish (Rec. Doc. No. 21), and Conrad (Rec. Doc. No.

24). Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to Christiano’s motion on May 25, 2010. 

Case 4:09-cv-02031-JFM-SF Document 29 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 5
2

(Rec. Doc. No. 17). 

 However, Plaintiff failed to file his opposition to Reish’s and Conrad’s motions 

by the original July 12, 2010 deadline. Therefore, by Order dated July 19, 2010, we

directed Plaintiff to file his opposition to the motions on or before August 3, 2010 and

warned him that his failure to do so would result in the motions being deemed

unopposed and granted without a merits analysis. (See Rec. Doc. No. 27.) Although

the extended deadline for filing his opposition has passed, Plaintiff neither has filed

his opposition briefs nor requested an extension of time in which to do so. 

On August 6, 2010, counsel for Defendant Reish filed a letter observing that the

extended deadline for filing opposition to Defendant Reish’s motion had passed and

requesting that we grant his motion to dismiss as unopposed. (Rec. Doc. No. 28.)

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Reish’s and Defendant Conrad’s

motions will be deemed unopposed and granted without a merits analysis.

II. DISCUSSION

In Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991), the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a motion to dismiss should not

be granted simply because it is unopposed. Instead, the Court of Appeals specifically

stated:

Case 4:09-cv-02031-JFM-SF Document 29 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 5
3

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).

In this case, Plaintiff was advised of the requirements of Local Rule 7.6 in our

July 19, 2010 Order directing him to file his opposition to the pending motions to

dismiss on or before August 3, 2010. (See Rec. Doc. No. 27 at 2 ¶ 2.) He specifically

was notified that his failure to comply with Local Rule 7.6 by timely filing his

opposition briefs would result in the motions to dismiss being granted without a merits

analysis. Consequently, the Court will grant the unopposed motions to dismiss filed

on behalf of Defendants Reish and Conrad without a merits analysis, dismiss the

claims against them, and dismiss them as parties to this action. See M.D. Pa. Local

Rule 7.6; Stackhouse, 951 F.2d at 30 (3d Cir. 1991). An appropriate Order follows.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-02031-JFM-SF Document 29 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JASON Q. LUCAS, :

 :

 :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL NO. 4:09-CV-2031

 :

 :

v. : (Judge McClure)

 :

 :

WARDEN RALPH B. REISH, 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 Reish 

(Rec. Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED.

2. The unopposed motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Defendant Conrad 

(Rec. Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED.

3. The claims against Defendants Reish and Conrad asserted in the 

Complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 1) are DISMISSED, and Defendants Reish and Conrad are

Case 4:09-cv-02031-JFM-SF Document 29 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 5
DISMISSED as parties to this action.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-02031-JFM-SF Document 29 Filed 08/09/10 Page 5 of 5