Line

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTINE L. LINE,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-01477

v.

(MEHALCHICK, J.)

FARMERS AND MERCHANTS TRUST

COMPANY d/b/a F&M TRUST, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Christine L. Line (“Line”) initiated this pro se action on August 8, 2025, by

filing a complaint against Defendants Farmers and Merchants Trust Company d/b/a F&M

Trust (“F&M”) and Scott D. Ehrig (“Ehrig”) (together, “Defendants”) alleging that Ehrig,

her estranged husband, photographed her prescription medications and uploaded the photos

to F&M’s server in connection to her divorce proceedings. (Doc. 1). Line avers that

Defendants are liable under two federal statutes, 15 U.S.C. § 6801 and 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and

under Pennsylvania law. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 48-85). Line and Ehrig are both Pennsylvania citizens,

and thus, the Court may only retain subject matter jurisdiction through Line’s federal claims

and may not maintain diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 11, 15); see GBForefront, L.P. v.

Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 34 (3d Cir. 2018) (stating “jurisdiction based on

diversity of citizenship requires that opposing parties be citizens of diverse states”). On

October 7, 2025, Ehrig filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state

a claim. (Doc. 8). That same day, F&M filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

(Doc. 9). On April 15, 2026, Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella filed a report and

recommendation recommending that the Court grant Ehrig’s motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction and deny F&M’s motion as moot. (Doc. 22). According to Judge Latella, the two

federal statutes Line brings her federal claims under do not provide a private cause of action

and cannot be used to maintain subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 22, at 16-26). Thus, Judge

Latella determined that Line only brings Pennsylvania causes of action, the Court lacks

diversity of citizenship because Line shares Pennsylvania citizenship with Ehrig, and this case

should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 22, at 27). Judge Latella concluded that the

Court should grant Ehrig’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, dismiss this matter

without prejudice to Line’s ability to bring her Pennsylvania claims in a court of appropriate

jurisdiction, and deny F&M’s motion to dismiss as moot. (Doc. 22, at 29). Judge Latella

informed the parties that they had fourteen days to file an objection. (Doc. 22, at 30-31). No

party filed a timely objection. As such, the Court will ADOPT the report and

recommendation. (Doc. 22).

“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. 22). NOW, THEREFORE, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Latella’s report and recommendation (Doc.

22) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of the Court. The Court GRANTS

Ehrig’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 8). The Court DISMISSES

this action without prejudice to Line’s ability to bring her Pennsylvania claims in a court of

appropriate jurisdiction. The Court DENIES F&M’s motion to dismiss as moot. (Doc. 9).

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter.

BY THE COURT:

Dated: May 5, 2026 s/ Karoline Mehalchick

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK

United States District Judge