Azubuko v. Bell Nat'l Org., 243 F. App'x 728 (3rd Cir. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Azubuko v. Bell Nat'l Org., 243 F. App'x 728 (3rd Cir. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
96 citation events (96 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Slotterback v. Pottsville Social Security Office (pamd, 2025-08-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2019 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2019 2022 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) ARCINOLO
W.D. Pa. · 2026 · confidence medium
Org., 243 Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) DAVIS
W.D. Pa. · 2026 · confidence medium
Org., 243 Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Slotterback v. Pottsville Social Security Office
M.D. Penn. · 2025 · confidence medium
Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Guyer v. Beard, 907 F.2d 1424, 1429-1430 (3d Cir. 1990); Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439, 454-455 (3d Cir. 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) SLOTCAVAGE v. WELLPATH HEALTHCARE
W.D. Pa. · 2025 · confidence medium
Org., 243 Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) NELSON v. LAUREL
W.D. Pa. · 2025 · confidence medium
Org., 243 Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) TORRES v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON
W.D. Pa. · 2025 · confidence medium
Org., 243 Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) REDDING v. SOMERSET COUNTY JAIL
D.N.J. · 2025 · confidence medium
Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) PRICE v. HUTCHINSON
W.D. Pa. · 2024 · confidence medium
Org., 243 Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) BURNS v. AMERIFINANCIAL SOLUTIONS
W.D. Pa. · 2024 · confidence medium
Org., 243 Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) WILLIAMS v. OBERLANDER
W.D. Pa. · 2024 · confidence medium
Org., 243 Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) SCHIFF v. SCI SOMERSET MEDACAL DEPT.
W.D. Pa. · 2024 · confidence medium
Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 Fed.Appx. 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rhoades v. Days Inn By Wyndham
M.D. Penn. · 2024 · confidence medium
Rhoades’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders “makes adjudication of the case impossible.” See Azubuko v. Bell Nat’l Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Pruden v. SCI Camp Hill, 252 F. App’x 436, 438 (3d Cir. 2007) (upholding the dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice for failure to amend his complaint); Figueroa v. U.S., No. 1:13-cv-230, 2013 WL 4813369 , at *2, *7 (M.D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) HIGGS v. LANIGAN
D.N.J. · 2023 · confidence medium
Org., 243 F. App'x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) LIU v. FOUJOY
W.D. Pa. · 2023 · confidence medium
Azubuko v. Bell Nat’l Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MCKINLEY v. STANISH
M.D. Penn. · 2023 · confidence medium
McKinley’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders “makes adjudication of the case impossible.” See Azubuko v. Bell Nat’l Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Pruden v. SCI Camp Hill, 252 F. App’x 436, 438 (3d Cir. 2007) (upholding the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice for failure to amend his complaint); Figueroa v. U.S., No. 1:13-cv-230, 2013 WL 4813369 , at *2, *7 (M.D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) GRIFFIN v. LOWES CORPORATE OFFICE
W.D. Pa. · 2023 · confidence medium
Azubuko v. Bell Nat’l Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shehadeh v. Wilkes-Barre City Police Department
M.D. Penn. · 2022 · confidence medium
Shehadeh’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders “makes adjudication of the case impossible.” See Azubuko v. Bell Nat’l Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Pruden v. SCI Camp Hill, 252 F. App’x 436, 438 (3d Cir. 2007) (upholding the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice for failure to amend his complaint); Figueroa v. U.S., No. 1:13-cv-230, 2013 WL 4813369 , at *2, *7 (M.D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fudge v. Marsh
M.D. Penn. · 2022 · confidence medium
Furthermore, although Fudge has been granted a 6 See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Singh v. Wetzel
M.D. Penn. · 2022 · confidence medium
Accordingly, a finding of dilatoriness and willful conduct is 5 See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JARVIS v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
M.D. Penn. · 2021 · confidence medium
Instead, the decision must be made in the context of the district court's extended contact with the litigant.” Mindel v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369 , 1373 (3d Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted).’ ‘ Although the Court will undertake an analysis of the factors set forth in Poulis, the Court notes that when a litigant’s conduct makes adjudication of the case impossible, such as in the present case due to Plaintiff's consistent disregard of the Court's Orders, “balancing under Poulis is unnecessary.” Azubuko v. Bell Nat'l Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Guyer v. Be…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clay v. Lycoming County Prison
M.D. Penn. · 2021 · confidence medium
Thus, the Original Complaint could warranted the treatment of a motion to dismiss as being unopposed and subject to dismissal without a merits analysis). 10 See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) THEODORE v. NEWARK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND COMMUNITY WELLNESS (2×)
D.N.J. · 2021 · confidence medium
Organization, 243 Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) REICHLE v. COUNTY OF CAPE MAY
D.N.J. · 2021 · confidence medium
Org., 243 F. App'x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. Delbaiso
M.D. Penn. · 2020 · confidence medium
Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiffs failure to file an amended complaint prejudices the defendants and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Dauphin County
M.D. Penn. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Tillio, 256 F. App’x at 509 (failure to timely serve pleadings compels dismissal); Reshard, 256 F. App’x at 508 (failure to comply with discovery compels dismissal); Azubuko, 243 F. App’x at 729 (failure to file amended complaint prejudices defense and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
M.D. Penn. · 2020 · confidence medium
However, rather than drafting and submitting an amended complaint as previously directed by the Court and in response to the pending Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff 1 This Court notes that, while a district court must ordinarily balance the six factors enumerated in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), when evaluating whether dismissal of an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute is appropriate, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit acknowledged in several non-precedential opinions that application o…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Caple v. PA General Assembly
M.D. Penn. · 2020 · confidence medium
Caple’s failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Court’s Order “makes adjudication of the case impossible.” See Azubuko v. Bell Nat’l Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Pruden v. SCI Camp Hill, 252 F. App’x 436, 438 (3d Cir. 2007) (upholding the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice for failure to amend his complaint).
cited Cited as authority (rule) WILLIAMS v. VITNER
E.D. Pa. · 2020 · confidence medium
Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R.
cited Cited "see" GBOHUNMI v. MOMENTUM ADVISORY COLLECTIVE
E.D. Pa. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko, 243 F. App’x at 729 . (quoting Adams, 29 F.3d at 875).
cited Cited "see" SIPE v. CLEARFIELD COUNTY JAIL
W.D. Pa. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 Fed.Appx. 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007).
cited Cited "see" Shotko v. The County of Lackawanna, Pennsylvania
M.D. Penn. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728 (3d Cir.2007).
cited Cited "see" Campbell v. Condrad
M.D. Penn. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728 (3d Cir.2007) (failure to file amended complaint prejudices defense and compels dismissal).
cited Cited "see" BROWN v. YOST
W.D. Pa. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728 (failure to file amended complaint prejudices defense and compels dismissal).
cited Cited "see" Allen v. Wells
M.D. Penn. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728 (3d Cir. 2007) (failure to file amended complaint prejudices defense and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" Salvaggi v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
M.D. Penn. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint prejudices the defendants and compels dismissal).
cited Cited "see" Hernandez v. Richards
M.D. Penn. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell Nat’l Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (nonprecedential) (stating that plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint prejudices the defendants and compels dismissal).
cited Cited "see" Flores v. SCI-Camp Hill
M.D. Penn. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell Nat’l Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (nonprecedential) (stating that plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
cited Cited "see" Moser v. Centre County Correctional Center
M.D. Penn. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell Nat’l Org., 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (nonprecedential) (stating that plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" Irby, Jr. v. Ransom
M.D. Penn. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiffs failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" Thomas v. Preston
M.D. Penn. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" Gee v. Sabol
M.D. Penn. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiffs failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" Manuel v. Harry
M.D. Penn. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" Olszyk v. Malik
M.D. Penn. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" Wilson v. Horwitz
M.D. Penn. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiffs failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" Shaw v. Superintendent
M.D. Penn. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" Lugo v. Matias
M.D. Penn. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiffs failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" Gracia v. Steinhart
M.D. Penn. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App’x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" Hunter v. Ebbert
M.D. Penn. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Azubuko v. Bell National 4 Organization, 243 F.App’x. 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint prejudices defendants and compels dismissal).
Chukwuma E. AZUBUKO, Appellant
v.
BELL NATIONAL ORGANIZATION; Jaqueline Sedgerick, in Individual and Official Capacity; Maurice Nobles, in Individual and Official Capacity
07-1687.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Aug 1, 2007.
243 F. App'x 728
Chukwuma E. Azubuko, Boston, MA, pro se.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 73 opinions  |  Unpublished

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of Chukwuma Azubuko’s complaint. For the following reasons, we will dismiss this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)®.

On December 1, 2005, Azubuko initiated this action by filing a complaint. On Janu[*729] ary 10, the District Court issued an order finding the complaint deficient, inter alia, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court directed Azubuko to file an amended complaint by January 24 or the matter would be dismissed. On January 18, Azubuko filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order; he failed, however, to file an amended complaint. On February 9, well after the imposed deadline, the court dismissed the complaint. Azubuko filed a motion for reconsideration which the court denied on July 5, 2006. On January 8, 2007, Azubuko filed a motion to reopen his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). On February 13, the District Court denied the motion. Azubuko filed a timely notice of appeal from that order.

We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. See Coltec Indus. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 269 (3d Cir.2002). Rule 60(b) “provides for extraordinary relief and may only be invoked upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” Mayberry v. Maroney, 529 F.2d 332, 335 (3d Cir.1976). The District Court’s dismissal of Azubuko’s suit was entirely appropriate. A district court has the authority to dismiss a suit sua sponte for failure to prosecute by virtue of its inherent powers and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). Such a dismissal is deemed to be an adjudication on the merits, barring any further action between the parties. See Landon v. Hunt, 977 F.2d 829, 833 (3d Cir.1992). Ordinarily a district court is required to consider and balance six factors enumerated in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir.1984), when deciding, sua sponte, to use dismissal as a sanction. When a litigant’s conduct makes adjudication of the case impossible, however, such balancing under Poulis is unnecessary. See Guyer v. Beard, 907 F.2d 1424, 1429-30 (3d Cir.1990); see also Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439, 454-55 (3d Cir.1994). We find that this is such a case, as Azubuko’s initial filing provided no basis for the district court to proceed with his case nor for an opposing party to respond to his allegations. Azubuko then failed to comply with an explicit order to make his allegations plain by filing an amended complaint. Such facts warranted the sanction of the District Court’s dismissal.

In sum, because Azubuko’s appeal lacks arguable legal merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).