United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MICHAEL ROBINSON, Plaintiff.
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH, et al., Defendants.
Matthew W. Brann, United States District Judge
the Court for disposition is a Report and Recommendation
filed by Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, III on March
5, 2018. In this Report, Magistrate Judge Arbuckle
granted Plaintiff Michael Robinson's Motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, but recommended that (1)
the complaint be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
without prejudice to the Plaintiff endeavoring to correct the
defects cited in the report within twenty (20) days of this
Order, and (2) Plaintiff's Motions to Produce Accuser
(ECF No. 6) and to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 10) be dismissed
as moot. No. objections to this Report and
Recommendation have since been filed.
designation, a magistrate judge may “conduct hearings,
including evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge
of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations.” Once filed, this Report and
Recommendation is disseminated to the parties in the case who
then have the opportunity to file written
objections. When objections are timely filed, the
District Court must conduct a de novo review of
those portions of the report to which objections are
made.Although the standard of review for
objections is de novo, the extent of review lies
within the discretion of the District Court, and the court
may otherwise rely on the recommendations of the magistrate
judge to the extent it deems proper.
portions 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.”Regardless of whether timely objections are
made by a party, the District Court may accept, not accept,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
reviewed the analysis of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle, I am
satisfied that his screening analysis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) is without clear error and should be adopted.
Indeed, the Court is in agreement that dismissal is warranted
(1), in toto, for violation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8,  (2) against Northumberland County Children
and Youth Services specifically pursuant to the Eleventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution and a failure to
plausibly allege Monell liability,  and (3)
against defendant employees of the Northumberland County
Children and Youth Services for failure to state individual
actions giving rise to even an arguable civil rights
violation. Given that this fundamental failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted mandates
dismissal, I am in further agreement that Plaintiff's
Motions to be Produce Accuser and to Appoint Counsel should
be dismissed as moot at this time.
NOW, therefore, IT IS HEREBY
Magistrate Judge Arbuckle's Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 11) is ADOPTED in its entirety;
instant Complaint will be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to Plaintiff endeavoring to correct the
defects cited in the report within twenty (20) days
of this Order;
no amended complaint is filed within that timeframe, the
action will be summarily dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
Plaintiff's Motion to Produce Accuser (ECF No. 6) and
Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 10) are DISMISSED
 ECF No. 11.