Circuit Watcher

07-0089 Ruzsa v. Rubenstein & Sendy Attys at Law
Before: CABRANES, POOLER, and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Istvan Ruzsa appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut (Janet C. Hall, Judge), dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute.
Because we find no error in the District Court’s dismissal of Ruzsa’s complaint, the judgment is
affirmed.
.
PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appellant Istvan Ruzsa commenced this pro se action against the law firm of Rubenstein & Sendy on December 12, 2005, seeking relief for alleged wrongdoing—specifically, legal malpractice and theft—arising from a 1995 car accident. Rubenstein & Sendy moved for a more definite statement, and the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet C. Hall, Judge) granted that motion on February 2, 2006, ordering Ruzsa to file an amended complaint by March 31, 2006. Ruzsa did not file an amended complaint by that deadline and, indeed, did nothing further to pursue his claim. The Clerk of Court then entered a Notice to Counsel on October 26, 2006, notifying the litigants that, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Local Rules of the District of Connecticut, the action would be dismissed unless a “satisfactory explanation of why it should not be dismissed is submitted to the Court by November 15, 2006.” Ruzsa did not respond to this notice, and on December 4, 2006, the Clerk of Court entered a judgment dismissing the complaint. This appeal followed. … Ruzsa v. Rubenstein & Sendy Attys at Law.