Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ally v. Myers

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

July 24, 2019

JONATHAN ALLY, Plaintiff,
v.
KAREN FELICA DEUTEAVICH MYERS, et al., Defendants.

          Hon. Karoline Mehalchick Judge

          ORDER

          John E. Jones III United States District Judge

         AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41) of United States Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick recommending that the complaint (Doc. 1) in this matter be dismissed[1], and noting that neither party has filed objections[2] to the report and that there is no clear error on the record, see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that “failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level”) and the court finding Judge Mehalchick's analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

         1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick is ADOPTED in its entirety.

         2. Judicial Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.

         3. Attorney Hollinger's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24) is GRANTED.

         4. Alden Myers' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) is GRANTED.

         5. Karen Myers' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 35) is GRANTED.

         6. Detective Hottenstein's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38) is GRANTED.

         7. The state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) within Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

         8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case.

---------

Notes:

[1]The claims set forth within Plaintiff's complaint pertaining to his arrest, bail, and state criminal case must be dismissed for a variety of reasons. First, Plaintiff's claims that involve his state criminal case are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Second, Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Karen Myers and Attorney Hollinger must fail because Plaintiff failed to allege either defendant acted under the color of state law. See Simonson v. Hemlock Farms Cmty. Ass'n., No. 3:06cv2084, 2007 WL 136753, at *2 (M.D. Pa. January 16, 2007); see Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Additionally, any claims against Alden Myers fail because Plaintiff did not include any allegations against Mr. Myers in the body of the complaint. See Robinson v. Wheary, No. 1:16-CV-02222, 2017 WL 2152365, at *1-2 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2017). Third, the Judicial Defendants, acting in performance of their duties, have absolute immunity from suit, and as a result of the allegations being centered on judicial acts, they are immunized from Plaintiff's claims. See Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303 (3d Cir. 2006). Fourth, Plaintiff failed to provide service to Shane Kope within the requisite 90 days, and, as such, the claims against Mr. Kope must fail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Fifth, Plaintiff's third-party claims for rape, murder, and sex trafficking fail because he lacks standing to assert a cause of action for the prosecution or nonprosecution of a third party. See Linda R.S. v. Richard ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.