The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAQUEZ DAVON BROWN, : Civil No. 1:24-CV-00173
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA, et al., :
:
Defendants. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
ORDER
Before the court is a report and recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Phillip J. Caraballo recommending that the pending motions to dismiss be
granted in part and denied in part and that Plaintiff be given leave to amend his
complaint. (Doc. 47.) Plaintiff objects to the report and recommendation
expressing disagreement with Judge Caraballo’s conclusions and analysis but does
not specifically argue that the analysis is legally or factually flawed. (Doc. 52.)
Defendants responded to the objections. (Doc. 55.)
When a party raises only general objections to a report and recommendation,
a district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of the report and
recommendation. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). “To obtain de
novo determination of a magistrate’s findings by a district court, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) requires both timely and specific objections to the report.” Id. at 6.
Thus, when reviewing general objections to a report and recommendation, the
court’s review is limited “to ascertaining whether there is ‘clear error’ or ‘manifest
injustice’” on the face of the record. Boomer v. Lewis, No. 3:06-CV-00850, 2009
WL 2900778, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2009).
The court has reviewed Judge Caraballo’s report and recommendation and
finds no clear error or manifest injustice on the face of the record. Plaintiff’s
objections merely express disagreement with Judge Caraballo’s analysis and
conclusions or reargues issues already considered by Judge Caraballo.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1) The report and recommendation, Doc. 47, is ADOPTED.1
2) Plaintiff’s objections, Doc. 52, are OVERRULED.
3) The motion to dismiss, Doc. 17, filed by Defendants York County,
York County District Attorney’s Office, Karen Comery, David
Maisch, and Virginia Hobbs is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. The Fourteenth Amendment failure to train and supervise claim
against York County and the Fourteenth Amendment false
imprisonment claims against Comery, Maisch, and Hobbs are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
b. The Fourteenth Amendment failure to train and supervise claim
against York County District Attorney’s Office, and the
Fourteenth Amendment Brady and malicious prosecution
claims against Comery, Maisch, and Hobbs are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
1 The court is adopting all of the substantive recommendations in the report and recommendation
but is exercising its discretion to simplify the procedural implementation of the substantive
rulings.
4) The motion to dismiss, Doc. 22, filed by Defendants York City, the
York City Police Department, Jeffrey Spence, and Andy Baez is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. The Fourteenth Amendment failure to train and supervise
claims against York City, Spence, and Baez are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
b. The Fourteenth Amendment failure to train and supervise claim
against the York City Police Department, and the Fourteenth
Amendment Brady claims against Spence and Baez are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
5) The motion to dismiss, Doc. 26, filed by Defendants Gary Kelley is
GRANTED, and the Fourteenth Amendment and ineffective
assistance of counsel claims against Kelley are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
6) The Fourteenth Amendment failure to train and supervise claim
against Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
7) The Fourteenth Amendment Brady claims against John Does 1 and 2
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
8) The claims for deliberate deception, failure to discipline officers
regarding Brady violation, false arrest, denial of fair trial, and
violation of self-incrimination are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
9) The Clerk of Court shall terminate the York County District
Attorney’s Office, the York City Police Department, and Gary Kelley
from this case.
10) Based on the rulings herein, Plaintiff’s complaint, Doc. 1, is
DISMISSED.
11) Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in accordance with the
report and recommendation, this order, and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure by January 30, 2026. If no amended complaint is filed,
the Clerk of Court shall close this case.
12) Because the court is granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint,
Doc. 51, is DENIED AS MOOT.
13) The Clerk of Court shall mail Plaintiff a blank complaint form.
14) This case is referred back to Judge Caraballo for further pretrial
management.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: December 15, 2025