explaining judges should give some review to every report and recommendation
How later courts described this case
- explaining judges should give some review to every report and recommendation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ADOLPH R. O. WRIGHT, :
Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-1918
v. : (JUDGE MANNION)
LESA GELB, :
Defendant :
ORDER
Presently before the court is the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson. (Doc. 5). In it, Judge
Carlson, having granted the plaintiff Adolph R. O. Wright’s (“Wright”) motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, conducted a preliminary review of the pro se
Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. Judge Carlson
ultimately recommends the dismissal of Wright’s Complaint, (Doc. 1), without
leave to amend. Wright has filed an “Amended Report for Motion for
Injunctive Relief,” which this court will construe as objections to the Report.
(Doc. 6).
When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of
the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir.2011). Although the standard is de novo,
the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge
and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to
the extent it deems proper. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa.
2000) (citing U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
Even where no objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good
practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P.72(b) advisory committee
notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d
465, 469 (M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878
(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every report
and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made
or not, the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); M.D.Pa. Local Rule 72.31.
In his Report, Judge Carlson recommends that Wright’s Complaint be
dismissed because it fails to comply with the most basic requirement of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that pleadings must contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2). Judge Carlson accurately notes that “[t]he complete
failure of the [C]omplaint to contain any well-pleaded facts leaves
‘defendants having to guess what of the many things discussed constituted
[a cause of action].’” (Doc. 5, at 8) (quoting Binsack v. Lackawanna County
Prison, 438 Fed.App’x 158, 160 (3d Cir. 2011)).
Judge Carlson additionally notes that dismissal is appropriate because
Wright is attempting to bring a civil rights action against state officials
premised upon claims arising out of his prior criminal case, even though
Wright pleaded guilty and stands convicted. See Hector v. Watt, 235 F.3d
154, 155-56 (3d Cir. 2000). As the Report observes, Wright’s request for
injunctive relief inappropriately invites this court to interfere with his ongoing
state case in that he asks this court to act essentially as an appellate court
and reject findings made by the state court in his criminal case, as well as to
issue wide-ranging injunctive relief. Consequently, Judge Carlson observes
that dismissal is appropriate pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman and res
judicata doctrines, as well as the Younger abstention doctrine.
Finally, Judge Carlson notes that the defendant in this case is a state
judge, whom Wright seeks to hold personally liable for alleged civil rights
violations arising out of the performance of judicial acts in Wright’s criminal
case. Because it is well-settled that judges are entitled to judicial immunity
for actions taken in performing judicial duties and absolute immunity from
personal liability for any judicial acts, the Report observes that Wright simply
cannot maintain an action against this defendant and the case must be
dismissed. In light of the types of claims that Wright is attempting to bring,
Judge Carlson recommends that the court decline to grant leave to amend
because to do so would be futile since the Complaint is flawed in numerous
ways that are beyond correction through amendment.
Wright has filed objections to the Report; however, Wright’s objections
do nothing more than repeat the same incoherent claims raised in the
Complaint or express his “eccentric notions regarding the nature of our
federal union.” (Doc. 5, at 1). The court has conducted a thorough review of
all pertinent filings and finds the Report of Judge Carlson to be well-reasoned
and well-supported. As such, the court will adopt the report in its entirety as
the decision of the court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Judge Carlson’s Report, (Doc. 5), is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY;
(2) Wright’s objections to the Report, (Doc. 6), are
OVERRULED;
(3) Wright’s Complaint, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE; and
(4) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: November 5, 2020
20-1918-01