2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-4-2012

Patrick Tillio Sr. v. Northland Group Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3807

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Patrick Tillio Sr. v. Northland Group Inc" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1637.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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GLD-062 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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,

 Appellant

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. Civil 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, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________
2

2

PER CURIAM

Patrick Tillio, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals the decision of the District Court 

dismissing his complaint without 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 fashion. The 

complaint offered 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 prejudice. 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. § 12911and review 

the District Court‟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 pleader 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 deficiency 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 days 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 that 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.