United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the court is the December 5, 2017 Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) of U.S. Magistrate
Judge Martin C. Carlson. (Doc. 5). In his Report, Judge
Carlson recommends that the plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, (Doc. 7), be conditionally
granted and that his complaint, (Doc. 1), be dismissed. On
December 13, 2017, the plaintiff filed timely objections to
Judge Carlson's Report. (Doc. 11). For the following
reasons, the Report will be ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY, and the plaintiff's complaint will be
Love Lundy, an inmate confined at the Monroe County
Correctional Facility, filed the above-captioned civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983. (Doc. 1). The named
defendants are the Pocono Mountain Regional Police
Department, Sergeant Kenneth Lenning, and Corporal Matthew
Nero. (Id.). Lundy's complaint alleges in a
cursory manner that his residence was unlawfully searched,
that unspecified criminal charges filed against him are
frivolous, and that those charges were based upon falsified
documents. (Id.). After filing his complaint, Lundy
submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915. (Doc. 7).
Carlson's Report appropriately points out that (1)
Lundy's complaint fails to adhere to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)
by setting forth “a short and plaint statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;”
(2) the Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department, as an
administrative arm of a municipality, is not a proper
institutional defendant under 42 U.S.C. §1983; and (3)
these pro se pleadings run afoul of the
Younger abstention doctrine. (Doc. 5).
objections are timely filed to the Report and Recommendation
of a magistrate judge, the district court reviews 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 of review is de novo, the extent of review
is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge,
and the court may rely on the magistrate judge's
recommendations 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 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 Henderson v. Carlson, 812
F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that judges should
give some review to every Report and Recommendation).
Nonetheless, regardless of whether or not timely objections
are made to the Report, the district court may accept, not
accept, or modify in whole or in part the magistrate
judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain
in forma pauperis and prisoner actions that are
frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim on which
relief can be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See28
U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). The court must accept all factual
allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the
light most favorable to the pro se plaintiff.
Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d
Cir. 2008). Since Lundy here proceeds pro se, his
pleading is liberally construed and his complaint,
“however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
sparse objections to Judge Carlson's Report, Lundy
attempts to simultaneously amend his prior pleadings and
assert additional motions, rather than respond to the merits
of the legal determinations contained in the Report. (Doc.
11). Lundy's “objections” simply mirror many
of his initial arguments, which were soundly rejected in
Judge Carlson's Report. (Id.). While Lundy is
quick to note, for instance, that he “would like to
produce evidence . . . relat[ed] to [his] claim . . . in an
attempt to have a court appearance, ” he offers no
cognizable bases for disputing Judge Carlson's
recommendations. (Id.). Moreover, even if Lundy were
permitted to amend his complaint to assert his claims against
the municipality, as opposed to the Pocono Mountain Regional
Police Department, it would not resolve his complaint's
more general pleading deficiencies, nor would it satisfy the
requirements of the Younger abstention doctrine.
(Doc. 5). Lundy addresses neither of these concerns in his
objections to the Report. (Doc. 11).
when liberally construed, Lundy's pleadings and
subsequent court filings present no sufficient basis for
permitting his claims to move forward, and the court agrees
with the sound reasoning that led Judge Carlson to the
conclusions in his Report. Finding no clear error on the face
of the record, the court will adopt the Report in its
entirety, conditionally grant Lundy's ...