# YOUNG v. LITTLE

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11060874

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 28, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11060874

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LATIEF YOUNG, et al., )
Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:23 -ev-358
Vv. )
)
GEORGE M. LITTLE, et al. )
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This pro se civil action was commenced on December 18, 2023 by Plaintiffs Latief
Young and Eric Coxry, on behalf of themselves and all inmates at the State Correctional
Institution at Forest (“SCI-Forest”). ECF Nos. 1, 11. Plaintiffs have sued George M. Little,
Laurel R. Harry, Ian Gustafson, S. Shaffer, and the Department of Corrections, alleging
constitutional violations related to the conditions of confinement at SCI-Forest. ECF No. 11. O
October 16, 2024, Plaintiff Young filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which remains
pending before the Court. ECF No. 26.
The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown for
pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), and
Local Civil Rule 72. On May 2, 2025, Judge Brown issued a report and recommendation
(“R&R”) in which he opined that the claims asserted by Young should be dismissed based on
Young’s failure to prosecute this case. ECF No. [52]. After considering the various factors set
forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), Judge
Brown concluded that, on balance, the relevant factors weighed in favor of dismissal as a
punitive sanction. Judge Brown also recommends that this Court dismiss Young’s motion for a

preliminary injunction as moot. Because Plaintiff Coxry has been actively prosecuting his
claims, Judge Brown noted that his recommendation for dismissal pertains only to Young.
Objections to the R&R were due on or before May 22, 2025. To date, no objections have
been received.
Accordingly, after de novo review of the Complaint and documents in the case, including
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [52],

IT IS ORDERED, this 28th day of May, 2025, that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the claims asserted by Plaintiff Latief Young shall be, and hereby are,
DISMISSED with prejudice, based on Plaintiff Young’s failure to prosecute his case. The case
shall proceed as to Plaintiff Eric Coxry.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge issued on May 2, 2025, ECF No. [52], is adopted as the Opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff Young’s motion for a preliminary
injunction, ECF No. [26], is DISMISSED as moot.

Near i Ap FF Cet fb AAS CTP
Susan Paradise Baxter
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11060874. Public record. Not legal advice.