Farrell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PARIS WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-01555

v.

(MEHALCHICK, J.)

ALYCE FARRELL, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Paris Williams (“Williams”) commenced this action on June 8, 2026, against

magisterial district judge Alyce Farrell (“MDJ Farrell”) and two Lackawanna County

Commissioners, Bill Gaughan and Chris Chermak. (Doc. 1; Doc. 8, at 1). Williams’s

complaint alleges that in his underlying criminal case, MDJ Farrell forged Williams’s

signature on documents from his arraignment, which Williams claims never took place. (Doc.

1, at 3; Doc. 8, at 1). Williams claims that his right to a fair trial was taken from him because

he was “prosecuted on fabricated and perjurized [sic] documentation.” (Doc. 1, at 3; Doc. 8,

at 2). Willaims also alleges that the county commissioners are also responsible for the actions

of the judges in Lackawanna County. (Doc. 1, at 4; Doc. 8, at 2). In Williams’s underlying

criminal case, he was charged with one misdemeanor count of making a false report to law

enforcement in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4906(b)(1). Williams pled guilty and received

twelve months’ probation. (Doc. 8, at 2). Williams appealed his criminal conviction to the

Pennsylvania Superior Court, which remains pending. (Doc. 8, at 2). On June 25, 2026, Judge

Bloom conditionally granted Williams’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

screened Williams’s complaint. (Doc. 8).

Presently before the Court is a report and recommendation filed by Judge Daryl F.

Bloom recommending that the Court dismiss Williams’s complaint without prejudice to

Williams reasserting his claims at the conclusion of his state court proceedings. (Doc. 8, at 8).

Judge Bloom determined that Willaims’s claims arise out of his ongoing criminal court

proceedings. (Doc. 8, at 7). Judge Bloom found that pursuant to the Younger abstention

doctrine, the Court should abstain from considering the merits of Williams’s claims involving

his ongoing criminal case. (Doc. 8, at 7). Judge Bloom informed Williams that he had

fourteen days to file an objection to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 8, at 8-9). No

objections have been timely filed. Having reviewed the reasoning of the report and

recommendation and relevant law, the Court will ADOPT the report and recommendation

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 to Williams reasserting his claims

at the conclusion of his state court proceedings.

Dated: July 29, 2026 s/ Karoline Mehalchick

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK

United States District Judge