The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caputo
Presently before the Court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion. (Doc. 13.) The report recommends that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. 6) be granted in part and denied in part. The report recommends dismissing all claims in Count I in the complaint, the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim with respect to the plaintiffs' personal property in Count II, and the official capacity claims against defendants Leighton and Vinsko. The Court will adopt the report and recommendation to the extent it recommends dismissal and will reject the remainder. The defendants' motion (Doc. 6) will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
Tyler and Antonia Hammond are residents of Luzerne County. They wished to purchase a property that was to be sold at a tax sale by the city of Wilkes-Barre. One day before the sale, the property was removed from the tax sale list. The Hammonds filed a complaint in federal district court against three defendants: the city of Wilkes-Barre; its mayor, Thomas Leighton; and its attorney, William Vinsko. The Hammonds bring constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as pendent state law claims.
First, the Hammonds claim that by removing the property from the tax sale list without giving them prior notice and by giving them false information, the defendants violated their due process rights. Additionally, the Hammonds allege that the defendants allowed their agent to enter a property and unreasonably seize and destroy the Hammonds' personal property and build a fence that encroaches on the Hammonds' property. The Hammonds claim that these actions violated their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Additionally, the defendants bring state law claims of misrepresentation and interference with contracts. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. (Doc. 6.) The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion. Presently before the Court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
The magistrate judge recommends dismissing all claims in Count I of the complaint, the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim with respect to the plaintiffs' personal property in Count II, and the official capacity claims against defendants Leighton and Vinsko.
Both parties have filed objections to the report and recommendation, and have had the opportunity to fully brief their objections. The Court will adopt the report and recommendation to the extent it recommends dismissal and will reject the remainder. The complaint will be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
A. Legal Standard for Reviewing a Report and Recommendation
Where objections to the magistrate judge's report are filed, the court must conduct a de novo review of the contested portions of the report, Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)), provided the objections are both timely and specific, Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6--7 (3d Cir. 1984). In making its de novo review, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Owens v. Beard, 829 F. Supp. 736, 738 (M.D. Pa. 1993). Although the review is de novo, the statute permits the court to rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675--76 (1980); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7; Ball v. United States Parole Comm'n, 849 F. Supp. 328, 330 (M.D. Pa. 1994). Uncontested portions of the report may be reviewed at a standard determined by the district court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7. At the very least, the court should review uncontested portions for clear error or manifest injustice. See, e.g., Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376--77 (M.D. Pa. 1998).
Here, the court reviews the portions of the report and recommendation which Banks objects to de novo. The remainder of the report and recommendation is reviewed for clear error.
B. Legal Standard for a Motion to Dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, courts "accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). Dismissal is appropriate only if a plaintiff has failed to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), which is to say "enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal[ity]." In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 319 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2010) (alteration in Arista Records)).
"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. "Where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not 'shown'-'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Id. at 1950.
In line with the pleading standards established by the Supreme Court's decisions in Twombly and Iqbal, the Third Circuit has instructed district courts to conduct a two-part analysis when disposing of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Fowler v.UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). This analysis proceeds as follows:
First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a "plausible claim for relief." In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. A complaint has to "show" such an entitlement with its facts. Id. at 210--11 (internal citations omitted).
The gist of the Hammonds' due process claim at Count I is that a property the Hammonds were interested in purchasing was removed from the tax sale list one day before the scheduled sale, and the Hammonds were not provided with any notice or opportunity to be heard. In their objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss, the Hammonds claim that they also intended to bring a substantive due process claim. However, the ...