The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IMHOTEP MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-02228
v. (MEHALCHICK, J.)
JOHN DOE, d/b/a DON TOWING,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Imhotep Muhammad (“Muhammad”) initiated this pro se action on
December 23, 2024, by filing a complaint. (Doc. 1). On September 5, 2025, Muhammad filed
the operative amended complaint alleging that Defendant John Doe d/b/a Don Towing
(“Don’s Towing”) is liable for unconstitutionally towing Muhammad’s vehicle on May 13,
2021. (Doc. 34-1). On December 22, 2025, Don’s Towing filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim. (Doc. 40). On June 1, 2026, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Carballo issued a
report and recommendation recommending that the Court grant Don’s Towing’s motion to
dismiss because “the statute of limitations elapsed prior to Muhammad filing this federal
action” and because “Muhammad has not plausibly alleged that Don’s Towing is a state actor
liable under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983.” (Doc. 46, at 2). Judge Caraballo
further recommended that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice because Muhammad’s
claims are time-barred. (Doc. 46, at 13). In the report, Judge Caraballo advised Muhammad
that he had fourteen days to object to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 46, at 20-21).
Muhammad did not file a timely objection. The Court will ADOPT the report and
recommendation. (Doc. 46).
“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 district 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. 46). As such, Judge Caraballo’s report and
recommendation (Doc. 46) is adopted in its entirety as the decision of the Court. Don’s
Towing’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED (Doc. 40), and the amended complaint is
dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 34-1). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter.
BY THE COURT:
Dated: June 23, 2026 /s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge