The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
VALERIYA FROMPOVICZ, :
Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO, 3:24-2042
V. : (JUDGE MANNION)
COUNTY OF SCHUYLKILL, et al/., :
Defendants :
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the court is the report of United States Magistrate
Judge Daryl F. Bloom addressing the plaintiffs motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 3) and a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint filed on
behalf of four of the named defendants: Thomas Campion, ur., Esq., the law
firm of Marshall, Bohorad, Thornburg, Price & Campion P.C., James
Conville, Esqg., and the law firm of Zane, Rossi, Conville & 4airley (referred
to by Judge Bloom as the “GAL defendaints”) (Doc. 19°. Judge Bloom
recommends that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied and
the GAL defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. 52). The plaintiff
has filed objections to Judge Bloom’s reports. (Doc. 61). Upori review of all
relevant documents, the report and recommendation of Judje Bloom will be
adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the court and the plaintiffs objections
will be overruled.
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, “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) (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
me
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
The factual background of this matter has been provided by Judge
Bloom in his report and recommendation, which the court incorporates in its
entirety as if set forth herein. (Doc. 52, pp. 2-12).' At its core, the plaintiff has
brought the instant action against numerous entities and individuals raising
several claims related to state child custody proceedings in which she was
involved in 2020. For purposes of this memorandum, defendants Campion,
and later, defendant Conville served as guardians ad litem for the plaintiff's
daughter. These defendants, according to the plaintiff, are sued for
“conspiracy, fraud, perjury and defamation.” (Doc. 1, 42, Doc. 61, p. 6).
As noted by Judge Bloom, the plaintiff filed a motion titled as one for
summary judgment. (Doc. 3). However, the substance of the plaintiff's
motion is simply that the defendants had not responded to her complaint.
The plaintiffs complaint was marked filed on November 25, 2024, and her
motion was filed less than one month later on December 20, 2024. As noted
by Judge Bloom and reflected on the docket, those defendants who were
served with the plaintiffs complaint filed timely motions to dismiss. (See
' The plaintiff takes no issue with the factual background set forth by
Judge Bloom in her objections.
ae
Docs. 1, 26, 30). Moreover, on March 18, 2024, for those defendants for
which it appeared that the plaintiff had not properly served, a summons was
reissued to the plaintiff for proper service. (Docs. 45, 46).2 As a result, Judge
Bloom recommends that the plaintiff's motion challenging the defendants’
failure to respond to her complaint be denied. The plaintiff has not objected
to this portion of Judge Bloom’s report and recommendation. The court has
reviewed the record and finds no clear error with respect to this
recommendation and will adopt Judge Bloom’s report in this regard.
With respect to the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the GAL
defendants, as to the law firm defendant Zane, Rossi, Conville & Harley,
Judge Bloom observed that, while the plaintiff named this defendant in the
caption of her complaint, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), the plaintiff failed to set
forth any statement of fact to address this party, or its actions or omissions.
Because the plaintiff failed to set forth any factual allegations which would
indicate that she was entitled to relief with respect to this defendant, Judge
Bloom recommends that the plaintiffs complaint be dismiss as to this
defendant. The plaintiff has not objected to Judge Bloom’s recommendation
2 Subsequently, those defendants who were properly served filed
motions to dismiss. (Docs. 56, 72, 80, 81, 83).
~#-
on this basis. The court has reviewed the record in this regard and again
finds that there is no clear error of record.
Moreover, as to any claims of conspiracy, fraud, perjury and
defamation*, Judge Bloom concluded that these claims do not state a claim
under federal law. As to any claim of fraud, Judge Bloom finds the claim to
be “fatally vague,” as when “alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Judge Bloom finds that the plaintiff has not met certain
key elements needed to establish a claim of fraud under Third Circuit law.
See Christidis v. First Pennsylvania Mortg. Trust, 717 F.2d 96, 99 (3d Cir.
1983). (Doc. 52, pp. 17-18).
With respect to any conspiracy claim, Judge Bloom correctly notes that
there is no federal cause of action for a generalized conspiracy. While there
3 Judge Bloom interpreted the plaintiffs claim that defendants Campion
and Conville “did not conduct an investigation, discover facts, interview
witnesses, or in any way, prepare for the [custody] hearing [,],” and that their
performance at the hearing amounted to a “failure to exercise the standard
of care to which attorneys in Pennsylvania have a duty to provide (sic)” as
one for ineffective assistance of counsel and malpractice. (Doc. 52, pp. 15-
16). However, the plaintiff clearly states in her objections that she is not
attempting to assert any claim for ineffective assistance of counsel or
malpractice. (Doc. 61, p. 6).
Judge Bloom also determined that, to the extent that the plaintiff is
attempting to assert claims on behalf of her minor daughter, the plaintiff, as
a pro se non-attorney litigant, may not do so. The plaintiff does not challenge
this determination which is, in fact, correct.
_5-
is a federal claim for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S.C.
§1985, Judge Bloom notes that any such claim must be pled with greater
specificity than is generally required. Here, Judge Bloom finds that the
plaintiffs complaint is devoid of any allegations that the GAL defendants
acted together in agreement to deprive her of her rights.
Finally, as to any claims of perjury or defamation, Judge Bloom noted
that these claims arise under state not federal law. However, because he
finds that the plaintiff has failed to properly assert any federal claims against
the GAL defendants, Judge Bloom recommends that the court decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims for perjury and
defamation.
The plaintiff does nothing to challenge the substantive findings in
Judge Bloom’s report. Instead, in her objections, the plaintiff simply states
that her claim of fraud “is more than obvious” and that the GAL defendants
“intentionally participate[d] in SCCYS employees’ fraud of fabricating child
abuse cases[.]” The court has reviewed Judge Bloom’s report, finds the law
is as he has stated, and agrees with the conclusions he presents. Nothing in
the plaintiffs objections sways the court that Judge Bloom erred in any
regard, or that the defendants’ motion to dismiss should not be granted.
-6-
Based upon the foregoing, an appropriate order shall issue.
ALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: §fUf: 25
24-2042-01
-7-