Krowiak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KAHILL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-00080

v. (MEHALCHICK, J.)

DREW KROWIAK, ESQUIRE,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff Kahill Williams (“Williams”) initiated this pro se action on January 14, 2026,

by filing a complaint. (Doc. 1). On February 13, 2026, Williams filed a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). On February 23, 2026, Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab granted

Williams’s motion. (Doc. 6). On February 26, 2026, Judge Schwab screened the complaint in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, determined that Williams’s complaint was subject to

dismissal for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction, and granted Williams leave to

file an amended complaint. (Doc. 7). On March 31, 2026, Williams filed the operative

amended complaint alleging that Defendant Andrew Krowiak (“Krowiak”), First District

Attorney for Lackawanna County, acted improperly when prosecuting Williams for failure

to register as a sex offender and Krowiak’s misconduct resulted in Williams being erroneously

detained. (Doc. 9). According to Williams, Krowiak violated his rights under the Fourth,

Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. 9, at 2, 6).

On April 29, 2026, Judge Schwab screened Williams’s amended complaint and

recommended that the Court dismiss this action and deny leave to amend. (Doc. 10, at 19).

Judge Schwab concluded that any federal constitutional claims Williams asserts against

Krowiak in his individual capacity are barred by prosecutorial immunity and Williams does

not allege any facts which, even when liberally construed, state a federal constitutional claim

against Krowiak in his official capacity. (Doc. 10, at 8-17). Judge Schwab further noted that

the only basis by which the Court could retain jurisdiction over any liberally construed state

law claims is through supplemental jurisdiction, and Williams provides no justification for

the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims absent federal claims.

(Doc. 10, at 17-18). Judge Schwab recommended that the Court deny leave to amend because

she had already granted Williams the opportunity to file an amended complaint and he again

failed to state a claim. (Doc. 10, at 17-18). Judge Schwab advised Williams that he had

fourteen days to file an objection. (Doc. 10, at 19-20). Williams did not file a timely objection.

As such, the Court will ADOPT the report and recommendation. (Doc. 10).

“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. 10). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Schwab’s report and recommendation (Doc. 10) is

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

amended complaint (Doc. 9) without prejudice and DENIES leave to amend. The Clerk of

Court is directed to close this matter.

BY THE COURT:

Dated: July 29, 2026 /s/ Karoline Mehalchick

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK

United States District Judge