# Harris v. Department of Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · April 29, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10410306

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 29, 2021
- **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/10410306

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining judges should give some review to every report and recommendation

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CAROLYN LEE HARRIS, :

Petitioner : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-1767

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

DEPARTMENT OF :
PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION, :

Respondent :

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the court is the report of United States Magistrate
Judge Martin C. Carlson which recommends that the instant petition for writ
of mandamus be dismissed. (Doc. 4). The petitioner has filed objections to
the report. (Doc. 5). Upon review of the record, the petitioner’s objections will
be overruled and the report and recommendation will be adopted in its
entirety.
By way of relevant background, the petitioner filed the instant action
claiming that she applied for unemployment compensation benefits in May
of 2020 due to a disability. She claims that she submitted all requested
information and has consistently followed up on the status of her application,
but has yet to receive a response to her application. The petitioner claims
that the state is denying her due process rights by failing to act upon her
application and asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus upon the

respondent directing that she be given her due process rights and have her
application considered.
In considering the instant petition, Judge Carlson outlined the

requirements for and limitations upon issuing a petition for writ of mandamus.
Of most importance here is the fact that, by statute, “[t]he district courts shall
have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of a mandamus to compel
an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform

a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. §1361 (emphasis added). Thus,
federal courts may only issue writs of mandamus against federal agencies
and employees, and lack jurisdiction to do so with respect to state agencies

or officials. In light of the fact that the petitioner is seeking mandamus relief
against a state agency, Judge Carlson determined that we lack the authority
to grant the relief the petitioner requests. As such, he recommends dismissal
of the instant petition. The petitioner objects to this recommendation.

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 United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
For those sections of the report and recommendation to which 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); Local Rule 72.31.
Here, petitioner objects to Judge Carlson’s report arguing that she

does not seek from this court a determination as to her eligibility for
unemployment benefits, but seeks an order from this court directing the
respondent to afford her due process rights. However, while the court

sympathizes with the plaintiff’s predicament, as determined by Judge
Carlson, this is exactly what this court is prohibited from doing by way of a
petition for writ of mandamus, as this court lacks authority to issue a petition

for writ of mandamus compelling action by a state agency or officials. See In
re Wolenski, 324 F.2d 309 (3d Cir. 1963); In re Martinez, 778 Fed. Appx.
198, 199 (3d Cir. 2019). As such, the petitioner’s objections will be overruled

and the report and recommendation will be adopted in its entirety as the
opinion of the court. An appropriate order shall issue.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: April 29, 2021
20-1767-01

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10410306. Public record. Not legal advice.