Sweeney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAMAR A. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-00259

v. (MEHALCHICK, J.)

KEVIN ROBERT SWEENEY, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Lamar A. Williams (“Williams”) initiated this pro se action on February 12,

2025, by filing a complaint. (Doc. 1). On February 28, 2025, Williams filed a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7). On April 22, 2025, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo

issued an order granting Williams’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 15). That same

day, Judge Caraballo noted that Williams had filed four supplements adding factual

allegations and amendments to his complaint, found that Williams presented his allegations

in a piecemeal fashion in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, advised Williams

that he appeared to be attempting to proceed on invalid legal theories such as raising Section

1983 claims against private entities, and ordered Williams to file one single amended

complaint. (Doc. 16).

On May 12, 2025, Williams filed the operative amended complaint against Defendants

Kevin R. Sweeney (“Sweeney”), James Petrucci (“Petrucci”), John Munley (“Munley”),

Danielle Guari (“Guari”), Christopher J. Osborne Jr. (“Osborne”), and Baymont

Hotel/Wyndam Resorts (“Baymont/Wyndam”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 17).

According to Williams, Scranton police officers unlawfully arrested him while he was staying

at Baymont/Wyndam’s hotel. (Doc. 17, at 3). Williams alleges Sweeney, Petrucci, Munley,

Guari, and Osborne (collectively, “Law Enforcement Defendants”) made false statements in

association with his unlawful arrest and subsequent frivolous prosecution. (Doc. 18, at 8).

Williams does not bring his claims under numbered counts but brings various state and federal

claims against Defendants. (Doc. 17). Williams alleges Baymont/Wyndam are liable for

negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and for violating his civil rights. (Doc.

17, at 3-4). Williams alleges Law Enforcement Defendants violated his Fifth, Eighth, and

Fourteenth Amendment rights and violated various federal statutes. (Doc. 17, at 4, 9-10). He

further alleges Law Enforcement Defendants are liable for negligence, intentional

misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, abuse of judicial process, obstruction of justice,

tampering with court records, and intentional abuse of due process. (Doc. 17, at 10).

On April 17, 2026, Magistrate Judge Leo A Latella1 screened the amended complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A). (Doc. 20). Judge Latella first

found that despite Judge Caraballo previously advising Williams about the requirements of

Rule 8, the amended complaint violates Rule 8 because it contains nearly ten pages of

narrative as its “Statement of Claim” and does not contain a “‘a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” (Doc. 20, at 10) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2)). Judge Latella further found that Williams fails to state any federal claims for which

relief could be granted. (Doc. 20, at 9-35). Judge Latella concluded that Williams’s claims

against Baymont/Wyndam failed because 1) he attempts to bring Section 1983 claims against

a private actor without alleging that Baymont/Wyndam “was aware of law enforcement’s

presence or in any way facilitated or assisted them,” and 2) attempts to bring racial

discrimination claims without alleging that Baymont/Wyndam discriminated against him on

1 This matter was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Latella on August 6, 2025.

the basis of race. (Doc. 20, at 13-15). Judge Latella further determined that Williams fails to

state any federal claims against Law Enforcement Defendants because 1) Williams attempts

to bring a civil action under various criminal statutes which do not provide a private cause of

action, 2) Williams attempts to bring equal protection claims without alleging disparate

treatment on the basis of his race, 3) Williams attempts to bring substantive due process claims

without alleging any actions which “shock the conscious,” 4) Willaims attempts to bring

procedural due process claims based on the fact that his criminal docket sheet does not list a

preliminary hearing but does not allege that he was denied a preliminary hearing, and 5)

attempts to bring Eight Amendment claims without alleging he was convicted or sentenced

and without naming any prison officials as defendants. (Doc. 20, at 18-25). Judge Latella

concluded that since the Court should dismiss Williams’s federal claims, the Court should

also dismiss Williams’s state claims because Williams does not allege any circumstances

warranting the Court retaining supplemental jurisdiction.2 (Doc. 20, at 25). Finally, Judge

Latella recommended that the Court deny leave to amend because Williams has already been

afforded the opportunity to amend his complaint but has still failed to state a claim for which

relief could be granted. (Doc. 20, at 35-36). Judge Latella noted, however, that Williams’s

state law claims should be dismissed without prejudice to his ability to file a complaint in a

court of appropriate jurisdiction. (Doc. 20, at 36). Judge Latella informed Willaims that he

2 Judge Latella also discussed the substance of Williams’s state law claims, in the

alternative to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and offered alternative recommendations that

the state law claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 20, at 26-35). Because the

Court agrees with Judge Latella that Willaims’s state law claims should be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction, the Court declines discuss or make any findings regarding the merits of

Williams’s state law claims. See Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 650 (3d Cir. 2009) (stating “[i]f a

district court decides not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and therefore dismisses state-

law claims, it should do so without prejudice, as there has been no adjudication on the

merits”).

had fourteen days to an objection. (Doc. 20, at 38-39). Williams did not file a timely objection.

As such, the Court will ADOPT the report and recommendation. (Doc. 20).

“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. 20). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Latella’s report and recommendation (Doc. 20) is

ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of the Court. The Court DISMISSES

Williams’s amended complaint and DENIES leave to amend . (Doc. 17). The Court

DISMISSES Williams’s federal claims with prejudice but DISMISSES Williams’s state

claims without prejudice to his ability to bring them in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter.

BY THE COURT:

Dated: May 11, 2026 /s/ Karoline Mehalchick

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK

United States District Judge