The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAQUAN SEABROOK, : Civil No. 1:21-cv-1137
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
TROOPER ANTWJUAN COX, et al., :
:
Defendants. : Judge Sylvia H. Rambo
O R D E R
Before the court is a report and recommendation (Doc. 10) filed by Magistrate
Judge Carlson in which he recommends, upon a legally mandated screening review
of Plaintiff Daquan Seabrook’s complaint (Doc. 1), that the complaint be dismissed
because (1) constitutional claims cannot be premised upon alleged verbal harassment
or defamation, (2) Younger abstention bars Seabrook’s request for an injunction
forbidding the police from contacting him or his family; (3) Seabrook may not sue a
local police department as a police department is not a “person” for purposes of §
1983; and (4) Seabrook’s claim for $5,000,000.00 in damages is improper as it
violates Local Rule 8.1. Plaintiff filed brief objections to the report and
recommendation on August 8, 2021 (Doc. 11), in which he clarifies a few of his
allegations but stands on the claims asserted in his complaint.
When objections are timely filed to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of 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) (citation omitted). Regardless of whether timely objections are made, 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.
In the instant matter, the court has considered Seabrook’s objections and
provided de novo review to the portions of the report to which they correspond, and
finds them to be without merit. Magistrate Judge Carlson’s report and
recommendation is well-reasoned and the court is satisfied that it contains no clear
error.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1) Magistrate Judge Carlson’s report and recommendation (Doc. 10) is
ADOPTED in its entirety;
2) Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED;
3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case; and
4) Any appeal taken from this order is deemed frivolous and not in good faith.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge