Opinion
2:23cv1294
05-30-2024
GREGORY JOSEPH PODLUCKY, Plaintiff, v. THE LINDSAY LAW FIRM, P.C., Defendant.
Electronic Filing
MEMORANDUM ORDER
David Stewart Cercone Senior United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2024, upon due consideration of [10] the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the complaint in the abovecaptioned case be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a) with prejudice and [32] plaintiff's objections thereto, and after de novo review of the record, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint be, and the same hereby is, dismissed with prejudice;
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that [15] plaintiff's first motion to supplement and/or his requests to "clarify" through an amended complaint be, and the same hereby are, denied as futile.
Plaintiff's objections are without merit. Plaintiff conflates a cause of action in contract with what he views as violations of the Rules of Professional conduct. A purported violation of the Rules does equate to a recoverable claim for damages in contract. Any asserted breach occurred more than a decade ago. And as aptly noted by the magistrate judge, plaintiff's "claims" in this action are baseless in any event.
The [10] Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted as the opinion of the court.
The Honorable Richard A. Lanzillo
Gregory Joseph Podlucky
gjp.ace@outlook.com
(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)