United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 14)
William I. Arbuckle U.S. Magistrate Judge.
December 29, 2016, Plaintiff June Taylor
(“Plaintiff”) initiated this pro se
action alleging that Defendant Santander Bank
(“Defendant”) violated the Fair Debt Collections
Act. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment. (Doc. 14). For the reasons explained
herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment be DISMISSED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that
Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collections Act. (Doc. 1).
The Complaint, however, appeared to be incomplete and was not
signed by Plaintiff.
January 20, 2017, the Court issued its Standing Practice
Order, which advised Plaintiff that:
One type of pre-trial motion is a motion for summary judgment
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The motion may be made by any party,
with or without supporting affidavits. Under Rule 56(e) the
affidavits may be supplemented or opposed by depositions,
answers to interrogatories or further affidavits. The
affidavits may also be supplemented by admissions on file and
other appropriate evidentiary material.
Local Rule 56.1 requires a motion for summary judgment to
be accompanied by a separate document containing a short and
concise statement of material facts in numbered
paragraphs. . . . The local rule further requires that
the statements of material fact by both parties must include
a reference to that part of the record that supports each
(Doc. 2) (emphasis added).
February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting Leave
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”).
(Doc. 4). On February 23, 2017, the Court granted
Plaintiff's IFP Motion, but ordered that service of the
Complaint be held in abeyance until Plaintiff filed either a
complete copy of her Complaint or an amended complaint. (Doc.
February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
“Exhibit D.” (Doc. 6). Exhibit D appears to be a
letter sent by Plaintiff to Defendant in March of 2015.
Id. There is no Exhibit A, B, or C in the case
record. On April 12, 2017, the Court, once again, instructed
Plaintiff to file a complete copy of her Complaint or an
amended complaint, and admonished her that failure to timely
comply with the Court's Order could result in dismissal
of this case for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 7).
April 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc.
8). Like the original Complaint, Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint was a single page, was not signed, and included a
one-page exhibit-this time a copy of an April 2017 letter
from Defendant addressed to Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff
did not sign her Amended Complaint. Id. On April 27,
2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to file and sign a second
amended complaint. (Doc. 9). The Court also observed, for
Plaintiff's benefit, that her Amended Complaint did not
“allege sufficient facts to state a legal claim of any
sort, ” because it contained only conclusory legal
26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc.
10). Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is almost
identical to her First Amended Complaint with two notable
exceptions-it is signed, and it includes a complaint
submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau along
with a one-page document entitled “Investigation
Report” attached as exhibits. In her Second Amended
Complaint, under the heading “Nature of the
Action” Plaintiff alleges that:
1. This is a Claim under The Consumer Credit Protection Act
(15 U.S.C. 1607 et seq), in connection with violation of the
Fair Debt ...