Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wager v. York County Domestic Relations

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


January 14, 2010

NEIL WAGER PLAINTIFF,
v.
YORK COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge

(Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of January, 2010, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 25) of the magistrate judge, recommending that defendant's motions to dismiss (Doc. 23) be granted, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that the complaint in the above-captioned matter alleges federal civil rights claims of gender-based discrimination against institutional and individual defendants resulting from child support proceedings at the state level, and that the magistrate judge's report recommends that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (see Gary v. Braddock Cemetery, 517 F.3d 195, 200 (3d. Cir. 2008) and Kwasnik v. Leblon, 228 F.App'x 238, 242 (3d Cir. 2007)), and the court noting that the magistrate judge also concluded that the dismissal of claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's agencies and state officials, acting in their official capacity, would be proper on the basis that they are protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, and that the dismissal of claims against judicial employees and officials would also be proper on the basis that they are entitled to immunity for the actions taken in their official capacity, and it further appearing that neither party has objected to this recommendation,*fn1 and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,*fn2 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report and recommendation (Doc. 25) of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED.

2. Defendant's motion (Docs. 12, 14, 23) to dismiss is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.