Filed: May 22, 2018
Latest Update: May 22, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER ARTHUR J. SCHWAB , Senior District Judge . The present action was initiated in this court on November 7, 2017 by Plaintiff, proceeding pro se. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial proceedings in accordance with Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Rules of Court 72.C and 72.D. Pending before the Magistrate Judge were four motions to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fe
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER ARTHUR J. SCHWAB , Senior District Judge . The present action was initiated in this court on November 7, 2017 by Plaintiff, proceeding pro se. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial proceedings in accordance with Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Rules of Court 72.C and 72.D. Pending before the Magistrate Judge were four motions to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
ARTHUR J. SCHWAB, Senior District Judge.
The present action was initiated in this court on November 7, 2017 by Plaintiff, proceeding pro se. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial proceedings in accordance with Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules of Court 72.C and 72.D. Pending before the Magistrate Judge were four motions to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by the Defendants. See ECF Nos. 9, 15, 22, 48. The Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation filed April 27, 2018 recommended that the motions be granted. The parties were informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local Rule of Court 72.D.2 that defendants had until May 11, 2018 to file objections and Plaintiff, as an unregistered ECF User, had until May 16, 2018 to file his objections.
Defendants did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation on May 16, 2018, and his objections span fifty-six (56) single-spaced pages1 of disjointed legal conclusions and digressions that fail to specifically address how any of the recommendations are "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Magistrate Judge in her Report and Recommendation meticulously navigated the labyrinth that was Plaintiffs complaint by addressing every claim that Plaintiff asserted in his complaint against each conceivable defendant.2 Plaintiffs objections are wholly without merit.
Accordingly, after a de nova review of the pleadings and documents in this case, together with the report and recommendation, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2018, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
The motions at ECF Nos. 9, 15, 22, 48 are granted as follows:
Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with prejudice against the following individuals and the Clerk's Office is Ordered to terminate these Defendants from this case:
1. Devlin's Pointe Apartments' Management;
2. Judge Suzanne R. Blaschak;
3. Judge Robert J. Colville;
4. Constable Donald Glock;
5. Constable John Doe;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are dismissed with prejudice as to all of the Defendants because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims:
1. Count V-A;
2. Count V-B;
3. Count VII;
4. Count VII-C;
5. Count XVI;
6. Count VI-B;
7. Count XV;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are dismissed against all of the Defendants as frivolous:
1. Count V-C;
2. Count VI-A;
3. Count VII-A;
4. Count VII-B;
5. Count VII-C;
6. Count VII-D;
7. Count VII-E;
8. Count X-A;
9. Count X-B;
10. Count XI-A;
11. Count XVII;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of Plaintiffs claims against Hampton Township, Sgt. Kirsopp, Allegheny County, the City of Pittsburgh, Leslie Lewis, Paul Last Name Unknown, Ed Last Name Unknown, and Bob Last Name Unknown are dismissed;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause as to why this court should not abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) as to Plaintiffs remaining claims against the remaining Defendants, as his appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding his eviction remains pending. Plaintiffs response to this show cause order is due by June 15, 2018 and is limited to ten (10) pages, double-spaced, twelve (12) point font. Responses to the show cause order are due June 29, 2018 and shall be limited to ten (10) pages double-spaced, twelve (12) point font;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 54] is hereby adopted in its entirety as the Opinion of the District Court.
