Case Name: Stephen CONKLIN, Appellant v. WARRINGTON TOWNSHIP, a Pennsylvania Municipal Corporation Located in York County Pennsylvania; Warrington Township Zoning Board; John Doe
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-24
Citations: 304 F. App'x 115
Docket Number: No. 07-4835
Parties: Stephen CONKLIN, Appellant v. WARRINGTON TOWNSHIP, a Pennsylvania Municipal Corporation Located in York County Pennsylvania; Warrington Township Zoning Board; John Doe.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
Stephen CONKLIN, Appellant v. WARRINGTON TOWNSHIP, a Pennsylvania Municipal Corporation Located in York County Pennsylvania; Warrington Township Zoning Board; John Doe.
No. 07-4835.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on Dec. 8, 2008.
Opinion filed: Dec. 24, 2008.
Before: McKEE, SMITH and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
McKEE, J.
Stephen Conklin appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of all defendants on the action he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Conklin's attorney also appeals the district court's imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
Inasmuch as we are writing primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we need not set forth the factual or procedural background of this appeal except insofar as may be helpful to our brief discussion.
We have reviewed the thorough and thoughtful Memorandum of the district court dated November 30, 2007, in which the court explains its reasoning for granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. We have also reviewed the equally thoughtful and thorough Memorandum dated August 4, 2006, in which the district court explains its consideration of counsel's motion for recusal, the application of 28 U.S.C. § 455, and its reasons for imposing sanctions on counsel pursuant to Rule 11(b). We will affirm both orders substantially for the reasons set forth in those Memorandum Opinions.
This record clearly supports the court's conclusion that sanctions were appropriate because lesser sanctions "were clearly insufficient to curb Attorney Bailey's actions." App. 76. We pause only to note that, far from evidencing the bias that counsel attempted to establish, this record reflects that Hon. Christopher C. Conner acted with fairness and admirable patience and in presiding over this suit.