Welfel v. Wilkes Barre Police Drug Task Force ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM JOHN WELFEL, : No. 3:23cv1958 Plaintiff : : (Judge Munley) V. : : (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle) WILKES-BARRE POLICE DRUG : TASK FORCE, et al., : Defendants : ORDER Presently before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge William |. Arbuckle recommending that this case be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. 18). No objections to the R&R have been filed and the time for such filing has passed. In deciding whether to adopt the report and recommendation when no timely objection is filed, the court must determine if a review of the record evidences plain error or manifest injustice. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 1983 Advisory Committee Notes (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record to accept the recommendation’); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Sullivan v. Cuyler, 723 F.2d 1077, 1085 (3d Cir. 1983). After a careful review, Magistrate Judge Arbuckle cogently applied the Poulis factors in recommending the dismissal of plaintiff's action with prejudice for: 1) failure to provide the court with an updated address after he was released from the Luzerne County Correctional Facility; 2) failure to file a second amended complaint; 3) and failure to respond to court orders relative to filing a second amended complaint. See Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir.1984). The court thus finds neither clear error on the face of the record nor a manifest injustice, and therefore, the court shall accept the R&R and adopt it in its entirety. It is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1) The R&R (Doc. 18) is ADOPTED in its entirety; 2) Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute; and 3) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. BY THE COURT: LAI Date: & ¢ 5 7 □□ JUDGE JULIA K. MUNLE United States