The opinion
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HAROLD E. CARBAUGH, JR., :
Plaintiff, : 3:24-CV-736
: (JUDGE MARIANI)
V. : (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)
CHARLES M. MILLER, et al, :
Defendants. :
ORDER
AND NOW, THIS a AYE DAY OF JUNE, 2025, upon review of Magistrate
Judge William Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 17) for clear error or
manifest injustice,’ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1 If a party timely and properly files a written objection to a Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, the District Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
see also, Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011); V.0. Pa. Local Rule 72.3. Here, following the
issuance of the R&R, Carbaugh filed a series of letters addressed to Judge Arbuckle reiterating his
assertions of innocence and claims of wrongdoing by the defendants (Docs. 18-24). Plaintiffs filings are
insufficient to rise to the level of one or more Objections to the R&R. Plaintiffs letters do not reference the
R&R, nor do they set forth any statement or assertion which would alter the correctness of the pending
R&R or affect this Court's review of the R&R. The Court thus need not engage in a de novo analysis.
Nonetheless, upon review of the relevant documents, even if this Court applied a de novo review, the result
would be the same.
1. The R&R (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.
2. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND but
without prejudice to filing a timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuing a
professional malpractice claim in state court, and pursuing a § 1983 malicious
prosecution claim if and when appropriate.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned action.
:
pO dd Nig
Robert D. Mari
United States District Judge
2 The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety, with a narrow exception. At the time Judge Arbuckle
issued the present R&R, he correctly noted that Carbaugh had not exhausted his state court remedies
where his PCRA petition remained pending in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and Carbaugh could
therefore not yet file a § 2254 habeas petition. (See Doc. 17, at 9n. 23). However, on January 6, 2025,
the Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court's order denying Carbaugh’s petition. See Commw. of Pa. v.
Carbaugh, 2025 WL 31471 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025). Where it does not appear that Carbaugh appealed this
decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, he has now exhausted his state court remedies for purposes
of filing a federal habeas petition.