# Opinion

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · June 1, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11360152

## Case

- **Full name:** Shawn Luke Randolph v. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 1, 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/11360152

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SHAWN LUKE RANDOLPH,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00215

v. (SAPORITO, J.)

THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER
Now before the court is a report and recommendation of Chief
United States Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom, in which he recommends
that the plaintiff’s pro se complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief
be dismissed, but with leave to file an amended complaint. Doc. 8.
Judge Bloom recommends that the plaintiff’s federal civil rights
complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). He further
recommends, however, that the plaintiff be granted an opportunity to
cure any defects by filing an amended complaint following dismissal of
his original complaint.
No objections have been filed to the report and recommendation,
resulting in forfeiture of de novo review by this court. ,

488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007); , 812 F.2d 874, 878–
79 (3d Cir. 1987).
Following an independent review of the report and the record, and

having afforded “reasoned consideration” to the uncontested portions of
the report, , 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017),
we are satisfied “that there is no clear error on the face of the record,”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment. We find
Judge Bloom’s analysis to be well-reasoned and fully supported by the
record and applicable law. Accordingly, the court will adopt the report

and recommendation in its entirety as the decision of the court.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The report and recommendation of Judge Bloom (Doc. 8) is

ADOPTED;
2. For the reasons articulated in Judge Bloom’s report and
recommendation, the plaintiff’s pro se complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);
3. The plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint
within twenty-one (21) days after entry of this order; and

4. In the absence of a timely filed amended complaint, the clerk
shall mark this case as CLOSED.

Dated: June 1, 2026
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11360152. Public record. Not legal advice.