# Brown

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · September 2, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11434113

## Case

- **Full name:** Jaquez Davon Brown v. City of York, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 2, 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/11434113

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAQUEZ DAVON BROWN, : Civil No. 1:25-CV-01999
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
CITY OF YORK, et al., :
:
Defendants. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is the report and recommendation of Chief United States
Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom recommending that the complaint be dismissed.
(Doc. 8.) Chief Judge Bloom recommends that Plaintiff’s claims for malicious
prosecution and false imprisonment be dismissed with prejudice because they are
time barred by the two-year statute of limitations, but that Plaintiff’s remaining
claims be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) Chief Judge Bloom also recommends
that the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state
law claim. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation as
well as a motion to amend the complaint. (Docs. 10, 13.) In his objections,
Plaintiff provides citation to case law and reargues his complaint. (Id.)
When a party raises only general objections to a report and recommendation,
a district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of the report and
recommendation. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). “To obtain de
novo determination of a magistrate’s findings by a district court, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) requires both timely and specific objections to the report.” Id. at 6.

Thus, when reviewing general objections to a report and recommendation, the
court’s review is limited “to ascertaining whether there is ‘clear error’ or ‘manifest
injustice’” on the face of the record. Boomer v. Lewis, No. 3:06-CV-00850, 2009

WL 2900778, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2009).
The court has reviewed Chief Judge Bloom’s report and recommendation
and finds no clear error or manifest injustice on the face of the record. (Doc. 8.)
The objections merely express disagreement with Chief Judge Bloom’s analysis

and reargues Plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, the court will adopt the report and
recommendation, overrule Plaintiff’s objections, dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, and
deny as moot Plaintiff’s motion to amend. An order will follow.

s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: September 2, 2026

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11434113. Public record. Not legal advice.