United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION, United States District Judge
before the court is the report of Chief Magistrate Judge
Susan E. Schwab, which recommends that the plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 1), be granted and
her complaint, (Doc. 2), be dismissed. (Doc. 6). Upon review,
the report of Judge Schwab will be adopted in its entirety.
of relevant background, on March 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed
the instant action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, in which she alleges a
real property dispute. (Doc. 2). By order dated March 8,
2017, the action was transferred to this court citing
improper venue in the Southern District of New York. (Doc.
receipt in this district, the case was assigned to the
undersigned and referred to Judge Schwab for all pre-trial
matters. On May 16, 2017, Judge Schwab screened the
plaintiff's complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). In doing so, Judge Schwab recommends
that the plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
(Doc. 1), be granted, and that her complaint, (Doc. 2), be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. (Doc. 6). Judge Schwab provides the following
synopsis of the plaintiff's complaint:
Scott alleges that she filed a Declaration of Ownership
Affidavit in accordance with her Aboriginal Title and the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People
for Saw Creek on October 11, 2016, with the Pike County
recorder of deeds. According to Scott, Saw Creek Estate
Community Association, Inc. (“Saw Creek”) was
informed of this filing on October 22, 2016, as a result of
her conversation with Saw Creek's Director of Member
Services via telephone. Scott also faxed a Declaration of
Ownership Affidavit to Saw Creek. Scott claims that to
retaliate against the filing of Declaration of Ownership, Saw
Creek hired additionally (sic) security staff to
“hostilely and forcefully eject” her and her
sister off of the property/land on November 2, 2016. Scott
alleges that this incident was recorded on video. After Scott
was informed that Saw Creek retained counsel Nick Haros, she
faxed Attorney Haros the Declaration of Ownership Affidavit
on November 4, 2016, so that she could confirm her authority
over the land and complain about the treatment of both her
and her sister.
Scott alleges that she began interviewing possible candidates
to replace Saw Creek's property manager and its staff.
She faxed a notice to Saw Creek on January 11, 2017,
indicating that the newly hired property manager would be
surveying the land within three days. Scott claims that the
new property manager and staff were denied access to the
property by the Saw Creek staff. On January 17, 2017, Scott
complained to Saw Creek and its staff via email and fax that
they were trespassing and their services on Scott's land
were terminated. Scott claims that after contacting them, Saw
Creek hired additional security in order to intimidate her
and her authorized personnel.
Scott complains that Saw Creek continues to collect and steal
dues from the Saw Creek residents and that Saw Creek fails to
inform the residents of Scott's ownership. She also
complains that she is denied access to her property so that
she is discouraged from informing the residents about her
ownership and from discussing lot lease agreements with them.
Claiming that Saw Creek has taken hostile, deceptive, and
aggressive actions against her, Scott requests the ejectment
of Saw Creek and various thirty-party trespassers who are Saw
Creek employees or those that are domiciled on the land. She
also requests that Saw Creek pay her all rents, issues, and
profits derived from the leasing, renting, or use of the
lands beginning from October 11, 2016, until the date of
ejectment. Scott wishes to recover damages at a rate of $125,
000 per month with a 10% interest imposed for Saw Creek's
personal and professional use of the land.
(Doc. 6, pp. 2-4).
screening the plaintiff's complaint, Judge Schwab noted
that the complaint does not contain the grounds upon which
the plaintiff's claims rest against Saw Creek and the
other named defendants. However, to the extent that the
plaintiff is seeking the ejectment of the defendants from the
land, Judge Schwab indicated that it appears that the
plaintiff is trying to bring an action to quiet title. The
plaintiff does not, however, allege sufficient facts
regarding her aboriginal title to obtain relief against the
defendants. Judge Schwab further observed that, although the
plaintiff alleges that her bloodline gives her ownership
authority, she does not establish her bloodline, nor does she
allege how that possible bloodline warrants ownership over
the land in question. Further, based upon Third Circuit law,
see Delaware Nation v. Pennsylvania, 446 F.3d 410,
416-17 (3d Cir. 2006), Judge Schwab found that the plaintiff
failed to state a judicially determinable issue regarding her
claim of aboriginal title to the defendants' land. For
these reasons, Judge Schwab recommends that the
plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Given that the
plaintiff has filed numerous complaints here in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, as well as in the Southern District
of New York, which contain almost identical allegations
against other defendants, and which have been dismissed
without leave to amend, Judge Schwab has recommended that the
plaintiff not be given leave to amend, as such would be
than filing objections to Judge Schwab's report, on May
18, 2017, the plaintiff filed a letter, docketed as a
“Motion for Leave to File Out of Time/Motion to
Remand”. (Doc. 7). Citing to the above-captioned
action, as well as another action filed by the plaintiff in
the Southern District of New York and transferred to this
district, Scott v. Pine Ridge Cmty. Ass'n,
3:17-0668 (Caputo, J.), the plaintiff states that
“[she] never wanted [her] cases transferred to
Pennsylvania . . .” where she claims “. . . there
is a history in (sic) which appears to devalue [her]
Aboriginal/Indigenous/Native status . . .” The
plaintiff proceeds to challenge several aspects of the report
and recommendation and subsequent memorandum and order
adopting the report in the Scott v. Pine Ridge case.
She raises no substantive objection to Judge Schwab's
report in this case. The plaintiff requests, however, that
both cases be remanded to the Southern District of New York.
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.
case, the plaintiff has failed to file any substantive
objections to Judge Schwab's report. She instead requests
that the court remand her case back to the Southern District
of New York. To the extent that the plaintiff requests
remand, her request will be denied, as it is clear that
transfer to this district on the basis of venue was proper.
Moreover, with respect to Judge Schwab's report, the
court has reviewed the reasons presented by Judge Schwab for
recommending that the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed.
Because the court agrees with the sound reasoning that led
Judge Schwab ...