United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION United States District Judg
April 11, 2017, the court issued a Memorandum, (Doc. 6), and
an Order, (Doc. 7), directing that the report of Judge
Carlson, (Doc. 4), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, Walsh's
objections, (Doc.5), are OVERRULED, and Walsh's
complaint, (Docl), is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
the court did not close this case. Rather, the court referred
this case to Judge Carlson to conduct show cause proceedings,
affording Walsh notice and an opportunity to be heard, and to
issue a Report and Recommendation as to whether the court
should issue a pre-filing injunction against Walsh under 28
U.S.C. §1651 (a), enjoining Walsh from filing any new
civil action, motions, papers, or requests for relief in any
civil actions in the Middle District of Pennsylvania without
seeking and obtaining a court order allowing his filing.
April 18, 2017, Judge Carlson issued a Show Cause Order,
(Doc. 8), directing as follows:
on or before May 18, 2017, the plaintiff
[Walsh] shall respond to this Order and show cause why he
should not be required to obtain the prior approval of the
court before lodging any new complaints relating to the same
subject matter of past frivolous litigation. A failure to
respond to this Order in a timely manner may be deemed a
waiver of any opportunity to contest this show cause order.
April 24 and April 25, 2017, Walsh filed two nonsensical
documents. (Doc. 9, Doc. 10). Neither
document responded to Judge Carlson's Show Cause Order in
a coherent fashion.
April 27, 2017, Judge Carlson issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he considered Walsh's two stated
filings, (Doc. 9, Doc. 10), and
“recommended that the court enter an order in this case
requiring Mr. Walsh to obtain the prior approval of the court
before lodging any new complaints relating to the same
subject matter of his past frivolous litigation.” (Doc.
16, 2017, Walsh filed a document entitled “Response To
The Sad And Pathetic Correspondence From This Court Dated
April 27, 2017.” (Doc. 12). The clerk of court
docketed this document as objections to Judge Carlson's
report. The document consists of three pages, five exhibits
attached which are merely statements by Walsh that do not
make any sense. Neither the document itself nor the exhibits
have any relevance to the Show Cause Order Judge Carlson
issued. Indeed, none of Walsh's filings present a
meritorious basis for opposing an injunction order.
objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation
of a magistrate judge, the district court must review de
novo those portions of the report to which objections
are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the
standard is de novo, the extent of review is
committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and
the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate
judge to the extent it deems proper. Rieder v.
Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
those sections of the report and recommendation to which no
objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good
practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee
notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern.,
Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing
Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.
1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every
report and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely
objections are made or not, the district court may accept,
not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
court, in its sound discretion, can impose restrictions upon
a litigant's right to future litigation. See
Abulkhair v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 405 Fed.Appx. 570
(3d Cir. 2011).
Grossberger v. Ruane, 535 Fed.Appx. 84, 86 (3d Cir.
2013), the Third Circuit stated:
A pre-filing injunction is an exception to the general rule
of free access to the courts and its use against a pro se
plaintiff must be approached with caution. See In re
Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982). However, a District
Court may enjoin a pro se litigant from future filings so
long as the injunction complies with three requirements: (1)
the litigant must be continually abusing the judicial
process; (2) the litigant must be given notice of the
potential injunction and an opportunity to oppose the
court's order; and (3) the ...