Patrick D. Tillio, Sr. v. JULES MENDELSOHN On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-1123
__________
PATRICK D. TILLIO, SR.
Appellant
v.
JULES MENDELSOHN
____________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D. C. No. 06-cv-01977)
District Judge: Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe
______________________
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 25, 2007
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES AND ROTH, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed November 29, 2007
__________
O P I N I O N
___________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Patrick D. Tillio, Sr. appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his

-- 1 of 2 --

2
pro se complaint for failure to prosecute. We will affirm.
In May 2006, Tillio filed a pro se complaint apparently arising out of the tax sale of
his property. The next month, Tillio attempted to serve the defendant with the summons and
complaint. No further activity in the case occurred until November 28, 2006, when the
District Court ordered Tillio to show cause within 14 days why the action should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. Tillio failed to respond, and the District Court dismissed
the action on December 20, 2006. This timely appeal followed.
Even according Tillio the special consideration afforded to pro se litigants, we
conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. After several months of
inactivity, the District Court directed Tillio to show cause why the case should not be
dismissed, warned him that failure to comply with its show cause order could result in
dismissal, and provided him an opportunity to respond. Tillio has not explained his failure
to prosecute this action, and there is no indication that he failed to receive the show cause
order or that he did not understand it.
For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing the case.

-- 2 of 2 --