2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-4-2012 

# P a tr ick T i l lio S r . v . N or thl a nd Gr oup I nc

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 11-3807

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" P a tr ick T i l l io S r

. v . N or thl a nd Gr ou p I nc " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 1637. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/1637

### 1

1 GLD

- 062 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 11

- 3807

___________ PATRICK D. TILLIO, SR.; EMANUELA COKER, Esquire; JIM OSMAN

PATRICK D. TILLIO, SR,

Appell ant

v.
NORTHLAND GROUP INC; SHERAWN M HOLLIE; HARRY SPIESS; VINCENT'S HARDWARE FLOORING; JULES MANDELSOHN

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ( E.D. Pa. D.C. Civ il No. 11

- cv

- 05516 ) District Judge: Honorable Cynthia M Rufe

____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction, Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) , or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 December 8, 2011

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., and STAPLETON
, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : January 4, 201 2 )

_________
OPINION

_________

### 2

2 PER CURIAM Patrick Till i o , Sr. , proceeding pro se , appeals the decision of the Dis trict Court
dismissing his complaint with out prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Tillio filed a pro se complaint against several
individuals which appears to allege that they had „scammed‟ him in some f ashion. The
complaint offer ed little insight into either the nature of his claims or any basis for federal
jurisdiction. The District Court determined that his complaint did not comply with Rule
8(a) of the Fed. R. Civ. P. and dismissed it without prejud ice. It further provided Tillio
with 30 days during which to amend his complaint prior to administratively closing the

case. Tillio did not amend, and appealed after that period had run

. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 1 

### and review

the D istrict C ourt‟s dismissal under Rule 8 for an abuse of discretion. In re
Westinghouse Sec. Litig. , 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996). Rule 8(a) requires a pleading
to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the p leader is entitled to

relief.” A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with
Rule 8, but dismissal “is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so

1 

### “Generally, an order which dismisses a complaint without prejudice is neither final nor appealable because the defici ency may be corrected by the plaintiff without affecting the cause of action.” Borelli v. City of Reading , 532 F.2d 950, 951 (3d Cir. 1976). “Only if the plaintiff cannot amend or declares his intention to stand on his complaint does the order become final and appealable.” Id. at 951

- 52. Here, Tillio did not amend his complaint within the 30 day s provided by the District Court and instead appealed after the period‟s close. As a result the

### 3

3 confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible t hat its true substance, if any, is
well disguised.” Simmons v. Abruzzo , 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations

omitted). We agree with the District Court that Tillio‟s complaint was rambling and

unclear, and discern no error in its dismissal.

As the appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the
judgment below. See 3d Cir. L.A. R. 27.4 and 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6

District Court‟s order is deemed final and appealable.