Rahman v. Gartley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FARIDA B. RAHMAN, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-363

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

TINA POLACHECK GARTLEY, :

Defendant :

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the court is a report from United States Magistrate

Judge Susan E. Schwab which recommends that the plaintiff’s complaint be

dismissed without leave to amend. (Doc. 14). It is further recommended that

the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be denied. The plaintiff has filed

objections to the report. (Doc. 16).

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, Asatisfy

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.

The background of the instant action has been detailed by Judge

Schwab in her report and need not be repeated herein. Suffice it to say that

the plaintiff has filed the instant civil rights action alleging that she was

subjected to violations of her constitutional rights during civil proceedings

which were held before the only named defendant, Judge Tina Polachek

Gartley.

In reviewing the allegations of the complaint, Judge Schwab finds that

defendant Gartley is entitled to immunity on the plaintiff’s claims regardless

of whether they are official or individual capacity claims. As to any official

capacity claims, Judge Schwab finds that defendant Gartley is entitled to

Eleventh Amendment immunity. With respect to any individual capacity

claims, Judge Schwab finds that defendant Gartley is entitled to absolute

judicial immunity.

The plaintiff has filed objections to Judge Schwab’s report, as well as

a supporting brief with attached exhibits. (Doc. 16). While difficult to decipher

at times, it is clear that the plaintiff has not presented anything to

demonstrate that defendant Gartley is not entitled to immunity on the claims

before this court. As a result, her objections will be overruled and the report

of Judge Schwab will be adopted in its entirety.

As to the plaintiff’s pending motion for default judgment, before filing

her amended complaint on April 4, 2023 (Doc. 8), the plaintiff filed a motion

to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5), which was granted (Doc. 7). However,

it was not until Judge Schwab issued an order on April 10, 2023, that the

plaintiff’s amended complaint was deemed filed. (Doc. 10). Despite the

complaint not being deemed filed until April 10, 2023, on May 4, 2023, the

plaintiff filed a motion requesting that default judgment be entered in the

amount of $65,000 because the defendant failed to respond. Because the

amended complaint had only been deemed filed as of April 10, 2023, and

had not been served, Judge Schwab recommends that the motion for default

judgment be denied.

Again, nothing in the plaintiff’s objections or accompanying materials

demonstrates that Judge Schwab’s report and recommendation should not

be adopted. In fact, the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment was premature

because the complaint had not been deemed filed by the court until April 10,

2023, and had not been served. Moreover, even if the amended complaint

had been served, the plaintiff’s motion was procedurally deficient under the

provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 55 because no default had first been requested

by the plaintiff or entered by the Clerk of Court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). As

such, the plaintiff’s objections will be overruled and Judge Schwab’s report

and recommendation will be adopted in its entirety on this basis as well.

As a final matter, on May 23, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion arguing

that sanctions should be imposed upon the defendant because the plaintiff

had not yet received a copy of the defendant’s brief in opposition to her

motion for default judgment filed with the court on May 15, 2023. A certificate

of service provided by defendant’s counsel certifies that a copy of the

opposing brief was mailed to the plaintiff at her address of record on May 15,

2023, the day it was filed with the court. In any event, the court has already

made a finding that the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment was premature

and procedurally inappropriate. As such, her motion for sanctions will be

denied.

An appropriate order shall issue.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge

DATE: February 12, 2024

23-363-01