United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
(Ron) Tymiak, pro se
Maureen P. Kelly Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER
Marilyn J. Horan United States District Court Judge.
case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Maureen P. Kelly for pretrial proceedings in accordance with
the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and
(B), and Rule 72 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges.
23, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 17, recommending that Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 3, be granted; Plaintiffs Motion
for Interpleader and to File a Supplemental Complaint, ECF
No. 9, be denied; Plaintiffs Motion to Stay and Hold in
abeyance Defendant's Dispositive Motions on the Pleadings
by Remand Under Sentence Six of § 205(g) Pending
Proceedings Under § 1335, ECF No. 11, be denied; and
that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The
parties were informed that written objections to the Report
and Recommendation were due by August 12, 2019.
timely filed "Specific Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation." ECF No. 19. In
support of his Objections, Plaintiff filed a "Statement
of Facts in Opposition to Certain Statements, Findings and
Conclusions Contained in Magistrate's Report and
Recommendation," along with numerous exhibits. ECF No.
20. For the reasons that follow, after de novo
review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Objections do not
undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Court has reviewed Plaintiffs objections and concludes that
the recommendation to grant the Motion to Dismiss and to
dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice is sound. None of
Plaintiff s arguments and supporting exhibits presented in
his Objections and Statement of Facts are sufficient to
overcome the conclusion that Plaintiff has failed to allege
facts to establish that this Court has jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs claims asserted in Counts I, II, III, and V; or
that Plaintiff is able to properly state a claim in Count IV.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be
granted and the Report and Recommendation will be adopted as
the opinion of the Court, as supplemented herein.
addition to filing Objections, Plaintiff filed three motions
that are not only intertwined with his Objections, but also
attempt, in part, to advance his Complaint by challenging the
Report and Recommendation by other means. First, Plaintiff
filed a "Motion to Disqualify Defendant's Counsel of
Record for Conflict of Interest, Self-interest, The Advocate
Witness Rule and Imputed Structural Ethical Breaches."
ECF No. 21. In his Objections, Plaintiff objects on the
ground that Defendant's counsel should be disqualified
for a conflict and of interest, specifically referring the
Court to his concurrently filed Motion to Disqualify Counsel.
Pltf. Obj. at 6. Next, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to
Vacate Reciprocal Orders of Minnesota and Pennsylvania State
Supreme Courts When Acting as Trial Courts," requesting
this Court to vacate decades-old state Supreme Court orders
disbarring Plaintiff from the practice of law. ECF No. 24.
Count I and Count II of Plaintiff s Complaint purport to
state claims challenging his disbarment. In his Objections,
Plaintiff argues that because it would be futile for
Plaintiff to challenge his disbarment in either state court,
the Magistrate Judge erred in not exercising the Court's
equity jurisdiction. Pltf. Obj. at 7. Plaintiff states that
the equitable remedy he seeks is also requested in his
separately filed Motion to Vacate Orders of Minnesota and
Pennsylvania State Supreme Courts. Id. Finally,
Plaintiff filed a "Motion For De Novo Determination of
Matters Referred to Magistrate Judge and to Remand with
Instructions." ECF No. 26. Plaintiff explicitly bases
his motion seeking de novo review on the Court first granting
his "concurrent motion to disqualify Defendant's
Counsel." Pltf. Br. Supp., ECF No. 27, at 1. The Court
has determined that the Report and Recommendation is sound,
and that Plaintiffs Objections do not undermine the Report or
the Recommendation. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs three
separately filed Motions are intertwined with his Objections,
and do not on their own merit consideration in light of the
Court's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs
Motions will be dismissed as moot.
Magistrate Judge thoroughly reviewed the record evidence
submitted by Plaintiff as well as the underlying Social
Security record. For the reasons stated above, and after
de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the
case, including the Motion to Dismiss and brief in support,
and the brief in opposition, together with the Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiffs Objections thereto, Plaintiffs
Statement of Facts and exhibits, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs Objections do not undermine the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss filed
by Defendant will be granted and the Report and
Recommendation is adopted as the Opinion of the Court, as
supplemented. The Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's conclusion that allowing Plaintiff to amend the
complaint would be futile.
the following Order is hereby entered.
NOW, this 27th day of August, 2019, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 17,
dated July 23, 2019, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court,
as supplemented herein.
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED and