# Petrucci

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · April 30, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357046

## Case

- **Full name:** Marquis H. Johnson v. James Petrucci, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 30, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357046

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARQUIS H. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-00328

v.
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
JAMES PETRUCCI, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff Marquis H. Johnson (“Johnson”) initiated this pro se action on February 25,
2025, by filing a complaint. (Doc. 1). On April 23, 2025, Johnson filed the operative amended
complaint against Defendants James Petrucci (“Petrucci”), Detective Zach (“Zach”), and
John Munely (“Munely”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants violated his
Fourth Amendment rights by sexually assaulting him during a search incident to arrest.1 (Doc.
13). On October 7, 2025, Petrucci filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Johnson fails to state
a claim for which relief could be granted because Petrucci 1) acted within the scope of what
the Fourth Amendment allows while searching Johnson incident to a lawful arrest and 2) is
entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 32; Doc. 33). On April 10, 2026, Magistrate Judge
Martin C. Carlson filed a report and recommendation finding that “Johnson’s amended
complaint alleges a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, and the well-pleaded facts
alleged by Johnson plausibly state an excessive force claim.” (Doc. 54, at 13). Judge Carlson

1 The amended complaint also named Defendant Andrew Layton Krowiak (“Krowiak”),
further found that it was premature for the Court to make a determination regarding qualified
immunity because the question of whether Petrucci is entitled to qualified immunity turns on
factual issues which cannot be resolved at the pleadings. (Doc. 54, at 11-13). Judge Carlson
recommended that the Court deny Petrucci’s motion to dismiss “without prejudice to further
scrutiny at a later date through a motion for summary judgment, where [the Court] can
consider undisputed facts outside the pleadings.” (Doc. 54, at 13). Judge Carlson advised the
parties that they had fourteen days to file an objection to the report and recommendation.
(Doc. 54, at 14). Neither party filed a timely objection. As such, the Court will ADOPT the

report and recommendation. (Doc. 54, at 14).
“A district court may ‘designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition’ of certain matters pending before the court.” Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)). Within fourteen
days of being served a report and recommendation, “any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party timely files objections, the district court is to conduct a de

novo review of the challenged portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings unless the objection
is “not timely or not specific.” Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir.1984); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “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.” Rahman v.
Gartley, No. CV 3:23-363, 2024 WL 555894, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United 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. Adv. Comm. Note Rule 72(b).
The Court agrees with the sound reasoning in the report and recommendation and
finds no clear error on the face of the record. (Doc. 54). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Carlson’s report and recommendation (Doc. 54) is

ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of the Court. The Court DENIES Petrucci’s
motion to dismiss (Doc. 32) without prejudice to Petrucci’s ability to raise the same
arguments at a later date in a motion for summary judgment.

BY THE COURT:

Dated: April 30, 2026 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357046. Public record. Not legal advice.