The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHELDON LEE MORRIS, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 22-659
)
v. ) District Judge W. Scott Hardy
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
)
WASHINGTON CITY POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, PENNSYLVANIA )
BOARD OF PROBATION AND )
PAROLE (PBPP), and DANIEL RUSH, )
a/k/a Dan Rush in his official and )
individual Capacities, and as of yet )
unknown or unidentified individuals )
and any as of yet unknown groups, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections (Docket No. 14) to the Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly entered on June 6, 2022.
(Docket No. 11). The R&R recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint (Docket No. 8) sua
sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, and further recommends that limited leave be granted for
Plaintiff to amend with respect to any constitutional claim arising from alleged “physical
altercations” that he has been forced to endure as set forth therein. Service of the R&R was made
on Plaintiff by mail, and he was informed that any objections to same were due by June 23, 2022.
(Docket No. 11).
1
On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff timely filed his “Objections/Response to R&R.” (Docket No.
14). On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Clarification Re: Objections/Response to
R&R” (Docket No. 15), on June 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second “Motion for Clarification Re:
Objections/Response to R&R” (Docket No. 16), and on August 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a third
“Motion for Clarification Re: Objections/Response to R&R” (Docket No. 20). In all three Motions
for Clarification, Plaintiff asked the Court to accept his motions as extensions of his
Objections/Response to R&R. (Docket Nos. 15 at 1; 16 at 1; 20 at 1). In accordance with
Plaintiff’s request, the Court is treating Plaintiff’s motions as amendments to his original
Objections, and the Court has considered the substance of those motions in conjunction with his
original Objections.
Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that the Court dismiss his claim of violation of due
process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. According
to Plaintiff, Judge Kelly incorrectly interpreted his due process claim to apply narrowly to the
denial of his parole only. (Docket No. 14 at 1). Plaintiff argues that he intended his due process
claim to be construed more broadly, and to apply to the letter that Plaintiff alleges was written by
Defendant Daniel Rush, as well to Defendant Rush’s alleged actions in spreading falsehoods about
Plaintiff. (Id. at 2). Also, Plaintiff concedes that he is not arguing in his Complaint about the
validity of his parole or the validity of his confinement, and he requests that the Court disregard
the request for release of confinement found in the “Prayer for Relief” section of his Complaint.
(Docket Nos. 14 at 6; 20 at 1).
In resolving a party’s objections, the Court conducts a de novo review of any part of the
R&R that has been properly objected to. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
2
Court may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, as well as receive further
evidence or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See id. Upon careful de
novo review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff’s Objections, and Plaintiff’s Motions for
Clarification which the Court has treated as amendments to his Objections, the Court concludes
that the Objections do not undermine the R&R’s recommended disposition. In so finding, the
Court notes that, even considering the broader interpretation of his due process claim that Plaintiff
presents in his Objections – which, he argues, is not based solely upon the denial of parole –
Plaintiff still has not adequately alleged a claim of violation of his right to due process.
Additionally, out of an abundance of caution and mindful of the relaxed pleading standards
applicable to pro se plaintiffs, Judge Kelly recommends that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend
any constitutional claim that he is attempting to raise with respect to the alleged physical
altercations he has been forced to endure due to Defendant Rush’s alleged conduct, if applicable.
(Docket No. 11 at 6-7, 8). The Court finds that permitting such amendment provides Plaintiff with
an opportunity to amend his claims as appropriate in light of the Court’s ruling today. However,
if Plaintiff chooses to amend his Complaint, he should remain mindful that, if he fails to state a
constitutional claim therein, the Court will decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction over any
state law claims that Plaintiff includes, because the interests of judicial economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity will not be served by extending supplemental jurisdiction over any such state
law claims if Plaintiff cannot state a constitutional claim. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,
484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988).
3
Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order:
AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 2022,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R (Docket No. 14) are
OVERRULED, and the R&R (Docket No. 11) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Docket No. 8) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to amendment for the reasons set forth in the R&R.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to amend with respect to any
constitutional claim arising from alleged “physical altercations” which he has been forced to
endure due to Defendant Rush’s alleged acts, as set forth in the R&R.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff is unable to state a constitutional claim with
respect to such alleged “physical altercations,” his remaining state law claims shall be dismissed
without prejudice to refiling in state court, if appropriate.
/s/ W. Scott Hardy
W. Scott Hardy
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: Sheldon Lee Morris (via U.S. Mail)
4