McGeachy v. Doe

Full title: TIM McGEACHY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE #1, Warden; LAWRENCE COUNTY…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 15, 2011

Civil Action No. 10-917 (W.D. Pa. Jun. 15, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-917.

June 15, 2011

MEMORANDUM ORDER

GARY LANCASTER, District Judge

The above captioned case was initiated by the filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) on July 9, 2010, and was referred to a united states magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and rules 72.C and 72.D of the local rules of court.

On May 17, 2011, the magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) recommending that the Complaint be dismissed in accordance with the directives of the Prison Litigation Reform Act under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and/or § 1915A because this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction as a result of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. It is further recommended that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants John Doe #1 and the Lawrence County Correctional Center (ECF No. 20) be denied as moot and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) be denied. Plaintiff filed numerous Objections to the Report and Recommendation on May 26, 2011 (ECF No. 27, 28, 29), on June 7, 2011 (ECF No. 30) and on June 10, 2011 (ECF No. 31). Plaintiffs Objections do not undermine the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and the Objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 14^th day of June, 2011;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED in accordance with the directives of the Prison Litigation Reform Act under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and/or § 1915A because this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction as a result of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants John Doe #1 and the Lawrence County Correctional Center (ECF No. 20) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF. No. 26) dated May 17, 2011, is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this case CLOSED. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.