Sorokaput

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PETER SOROKAPUT, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-685

v. (JUDGE MANNION)

JAMES E. BONNER,

Coaldale Police Officer, and

TOWN OF COALDALE,

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the court is the report of United States Magistrate

Judge Daryl F. Bloom which recommends that the plaintiff's complaint be

dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 15). The plaintiff has filed what has been

docketed as objections to Judge Bloom’s report. (Doc. 16). Upon review of

all relevant documents, the report and recommendation of Judge Bloom will

be adopted, as modified, as the opinion of the court and the plaintiff's

objections will be overruled.

When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of

a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of

the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.

Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). 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. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa.

2000) (citing United States 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. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see

also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469

(M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.

1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every report and

recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not,

the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

The plaintiff filed his initial complaint on March 17, 2026 (Doc. 1), along

with an unsigned motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), and

a motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 3). After having been directed to do so,

(Docs. 5, 7), on April 20, 2026, the plaintiff filed an appropriate application to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8). On April 21, 2026, the plaintiff filed a

-2-

second motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 10). And, on May 8, 2026,

the plaintiff filed a supplement to his complaint. (Doc. 11).

On May 19, 2026, Judge Bloom conditionally granted the plaintiff's

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deemed the plaintiff's complaint

filed. (Doc. 14). Also on that date, Judge Bloom issued the instant report and

recommendation. (Doc. 15). As discussed by Judge Bloom, the plaintiff

brings this action against Coaldale police officer James Bonner and the Town

of Coaldale. Between the original complaint and the supplement, the plaintiff

provides very little information. However, it appears that the plaintiff is

attempting to bring a Fourth Amendment claim against defendant Bonner for

an unlawful search. Although the plaintiff takes issue with the representation

provided by his counsel during his state criminal proceedings, he does not

name him as a defendant in the case.

While the plaintiff provided no indication as to when any of this conduct

occurred, a search of the public docket led Judge Bloom to discover that the

plaintiff was arrested by defendant Bonner in February 2019 and

subsequently pleaded guilty in November 2019 to a number of charges

including rape of a child, aggravated indecent assault of a child, incest of a

minor under the age of 13, corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of

children, indecent assault of a person under the age of 13, and indecent

-3-

exposure. The plaintiff was sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty (30) to

sixty (60) years imprisonment.

In considering the plaintiff's complaint and supplement, Judge Bloom

concludes that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed. Initially, Judge

Bloom finds that the plaintiff's complaint and supplement fail to comply with

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this regard, Judge Bloom

points out that the complaint contains no information as to the facts

surrounding the alleged unlawful search by defendant Bonner, it contains no

allegations whatsoever with regard to the Town of Coaldale upon which

municipal liability may be found, and it fails to name the plaintiff's criminal

attorney with whom the plaintiff takes issue. Moreover, Judge Bloom finds

that, if the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim is based upon his February

2019 arrest by defendant Bonner, it is barred by the applicable two-year

statute of limitations. See 42 Pa.Cons.Stat. §5524; Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d

626, 639 (3d Cir. 2009). Finally, based upon the public docket, Judge Bloom

finds that the plaintiff's criminal matter is still ongoing as he is waiting

appellate review and therefore this court should abstain from considering the

plaintiff's claims under the doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.

37 (1971).

-4-

In what has been filed as the plaintiffs objections, the plaintiff does

nothing to challenge Judge Bloom’s findings. In fact, the plaintiff confirms

that the search conducted by defendant Bonner in relation to his February

2019 arrest is what he is challenging in his Fourth Amendment claim, which

solidifies that his Fourth Amendment claim is barred by the applicable statute

of limitations. Again, the plaintiff attempts to raise issues with respect to his

criminal proceedings and the actions of his counsel during those

proceedings, this time identifying his counsel.

Considering the record, including the plaintiff's complaint, supplement,

Judge Bloom's report and recommendation and the plaintiff's objections

thereto, the court finds no clear error. Moreover, the court agrees with Judge

Bloom in all respects except that, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's Fourth

Amendment claim against defendant Bonner is clearly barred by the

applicable two-year statute of limitations, that claim will be dismissed with

prejudice.

Based upon the foregoing, an appropriate order shall issue.

26 United States District Judge

DATE: 9/4

26-685-01

_5-