Conklin v. Warrington , 304 F. App'x 115 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-24-2008
Conklin v. Warrington
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4835
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Conklin v. Warrington" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 43.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/43
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4835
___________
STEPHEN CONKLIN,
Appellant
v.
WARRINGTON TOWNSHIP, A Pennsylvania
Municipal Corporation Located in York
County Pennsylvania; WARRINGTON TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD; JOHN DOE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 05-cv-01707)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
_________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on December 8, 2008
Before: MCKEE, SMITH AND ROTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Opinion filed: December 24, 2008)
___________
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.
2