The opinion
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE HENRY WHALEY, JR., :
Plaintiff, :
V. : 4:23-CV-1706
: (JUDGE MARIANI)
COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA, :
Defendant. :
ORDER
AND NOW, THIS ayhh DAY OF APRIL 2024, upon de novo review' of
Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 15),
Plaintiff's “Answer” thereto (Doc. 16), and all other relevant documents, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 16) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's “Answer to Report &
Recommendation” (Doc. 15) is untethered to the applicable law and presents only
baseless and unsupported arguments. Plaintiffs only statement relevant to the
present action and the pending R&R is that “it is a ‘LIE’ that the COMMONWEALTH
' Strictly construed, Plaintiff's document entitled “Answer to Report & Recommendation” (Doc. 16)
fails to meet the requirements necessary to rise to the level of an Objection. If a party timely arid properly
fles a written: objection to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, he Distict ‘Court “shall ma&e
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendatiors
to which objection is made.” /d. at § 636(b)(1)(C); see also, Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir.
2011); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3. Here, while Plaintiff's “Answer” was timely filed, he has not identified with
any specificity the portions of the R&R, proposed findings, or recommendations to which he objects.
Nonetheless, construing Plaintiffs “Answer’ in the most liberal manner, and giving Plaintiff every benefit,
the Court has performed a de novo review of the R&R.
OF PENNSYLVANIA has never been served.” (Doc. 16, at 2). In support of this
statement, Plaintiff attaches a “Proof of Service” stating that he sent a summons in
this case on March 16, 2024 to the Lycoming Court of Common Pleas, by certified
mail (see Doc. 16-2). However, as Judge Bloom correctly explained, under the facts
of this case, Pennsylvania does not permit service upon the Commonwealth by mail.
(Doc. 15, at 3-4). Furthermore, regardless of whether Plaintiff properly served the
Commonwealth, the Court agrees with Judge Bloom that Whaley’s filings do not
establish “any of the narrow circumstances . . . conferring subject matter jurisdiction
on this court over Whaley’s state criminal matter.” (/d. at 3). Having conducted a de
novo review of the R&R, this Court finds Judge Bloom’s analysis to be supported by
well-established legal principles, and Plaintiffs Objections to be without merit.
2. The R&R (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.
3. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
li 41 2 ete
Robert D. Mariani
United States District Judge