The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTINE LONG BRIGHT
SHINGARA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-00925
v.
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
FRANK GARRIGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiffs Christine Shingara, Adam Shingara, and Erica Shingara (together “the
Shingaras”) commenced this action against seven individuals and entities on May 23, 2025.
(Doc. 1). The Shingaras also filed a collective motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Doc. 2). On May 29, 2025, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo denied the collective motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and directed the Shingaras to file
individual motions or pay the filing fees within 21 days. (Doc. 4). Copies of the May 29th
order were returned as undeliverable, with notations indicating the Shingaras’ address on the
docket was “insufficient.” (Doc. 5; Doc. 6; Doc. 7). Almost a year later, the Shingaras have
not complied with the May 29, 2025 order, updated their address, or indicated a desire to
continue litigation by prosecuting this action. (Doc. 8, at 2). Presently before the Court is a
report and recommendation filed by Judge Caraballo recommending that the Court dismiss
and close this suit for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 8). In his report and recommendation, Judge
Caraballo informed the Shingaras that they had fourteen days to file an objection to the report
and recommendation. (Doc. 8, at 10-11). No objections to the Report have been timely filed.
Having reviewed the reasoning of the report and recommendation and relevant law, the Court
will ADOPT it in its entirety. (Doc. 8).
“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)).
The Court agrees with the sound reasoning of the report and recommendation and
discerns no error of law. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the report and
recommendation (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the opinion of the Court.
The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to TERMINATE all Defendants and CLOSE this case.
Dated: May 13, 2026 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge