“[W]ith respect to private witnesses, it is clear that §1983 did not abrogate the absolute immunity existing at common law...”
How later courts described this case
- “[W]ith respect to private witnesses, it is clear that §1983 did not abrogate the absolute immunity existing at common law...”
Written by the judges who cited it.
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 a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint
filed on behalf of defendant Tracy Hill. (Doc. 53). Judge Bloom recommends
that the defendant Hill’s motion to dismiss be granted. The plaintiff has filed
objections to Judge Bloom’s reports. (Doc. 61). Upon review of all relevant
documents, the report and recommendation of Judge Bloom will be adopted
in its entirety as the opinion of the court and the plaintiff's 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
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. 53, pp. 2-12)." At its core, the plaintiff has
' The plaintiff takes no issue with the factual background set forth by
Judge Bloom in her objections.
= Bn
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. In those proceedings, the plaintiff lost legal and physical
custody of her daughter, N.F. Defendant Hill was a private custody counselor
employed by the plaintiff and the father of the minor child, who gave
testimony during the custody proceedings. The plaintiff alleges that all
defendants “intentionally, recklessly and maliciously performed an act of
conspiracy, fraud, perjury and defamation” against her.
Addressing the defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, Judge Bloom
considered the substantive claims as against defendant Hill. In doing so, he
concludes that the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Moreover, Judge Bloom notes that defendant Hill would be
shielded against all claims brought against her by the common law doctrine
of witness immunity, which protects witnesses participating in the judicial
process from civil liability for acts taken in that role. The court agrees.”
Although the plaintiff argues in her objections that immunity is a “special
thing” to which defendant Hill is not entitled because only “judges,
prosecutors, legislators, and the highest executive officials of all
2 The court also agrees with Judge Bloom’s analysis of the plaintiff's
substantive claims.
25.
governments” are entitled to immunity, case law provides otherwise.
Muhammad v. Dempsey, 531 F. App’x 216, 219 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 334, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (“[W]ith
respect to private witnesses, it is clear that §1983 did not abrogate the
absolute immunity existing at common law...”)). As such, the court will adopt
Judge Bloom's report recommending dismissal of the plaintiffs action as to
defendant Hill.
Based upon the foregoing, an appropriate order shall issue.
i E. MANNION
UnitedStates District Judge
DATE: Gasper
24-2042-03
-4-