United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Karoline Mehalchick Judge
E. Jones III United States District Judge
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, and noting that neither party
has filed objections 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
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41) of Magistrate Judge
Mehalchick is ADOPTED in its entirety.
Judicial Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is
Attorney Hollinger's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24) is
Alden Myers' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) is
Karen Myers' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 35) is
Detective Hottenstein's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38) is
state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)
within Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE the
file on this case.
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 ...