United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
May 22, 2014
ANTOINE M. BLACK, Plaintiff,
VINCENT M. MONFREDO, ESQUIRE, Defendant.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.
AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2014, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 9) of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, recommending the court dismiss the complaint of Antoine M. Black ("Black") with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and, following an independent review of the record, the court agreeing with the magistrate judge that Black's claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment are without merit because Black was not constitutionally entitled to counsel in his earlier civil action (Doc. 9 at 7-8 (citing Turner v. Rogers, __ U.S. __ , 131 S.Ct. 2507, 2516 (2011) (holding that "the Sixth Amendment does not govern civil cases"))), and because Black has not identified a state actor responsible for the purported Sixth Amendment violation (id. at 8-10), and that such dismissal should be with prejudice because leave to amend would be futile, (id. at 10 (citing Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002) (observing that courts must liberally grant leave to amend "unless amendment would be inequitable or futile"))), and the court also in agreement that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Black's state law claim for legal malpractice, (id. at 10-11 (citing Hedges v. Musco , 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) ("[W]here the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so."))), and it appearing that neither party has objected to the report, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,  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 of the magistrate judge (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. Dismissal is with prejudice to the extent plaintiff asserts a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.