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.

Mutahi v. Catholic Charities Diocese of Pittsburgh

United States District Court, Third Circuit

November 20, 2013

RUTH MUTAHI, Plaintiff,
v.
CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

DAVID STEWART CERCONE, District Judge.

The Complaint in the above captioned case was filed on March 1, 2013 and was referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), and Local Rules of Court 72.C and 72.D.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20), filed on August 9, 2013, observed that Plaintiff's pro se Amended Complaint (ECF No. 2) set forth three (3) causes of action which, on the face of the Amended Complaint, failed to state any cognizable claim under the causes of action alleged and/or sought to advance purported claims that clearly were time barred, and that further opportunity to amend would be futile, as it did not appear, given the facts of record, that Plaintiff could make out a plausible claim. Accordingly, it recommended that Defendant's March 21, 2013 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) be granted.[1]

The parties were informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, they had fourteen (14) days to file any objections. Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation; Defendant timely filed a Response.

Plaintiff's "objection" to the Report and Recommendation is unavailing. Her objection is limited to a request for leave to amend. Filing a complaint does not grant a license to a plaintiff to keep filing submissions until a net is cast wide enough to ensnare the defendant in a claim for relief. At the very least Twombly and its progeny counsel against the use of such tactics and neither plaintiff's "objection" nor her most recent motion to amend provide any grounds to believe that she can overcome the shortcomings highlighted in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Consequently, after de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2013,

IT IS ORDERED that [8] the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that [20] the Report and Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated August 9, 2013, as augmented above is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.


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.