Smith v. Court of Common Pleas of York Cnty.

Full title: EVAN DAVID SMITH, Plaintiff v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, et…

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 5, 2024

1:23-cv-01812 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2024)

Opinion

1:23-cv-01812

01-05-2024

EVAN DAVID SMITH, Plaintiff v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, et al., Defendants

Yvette Kane, District Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Bloom, Magistrate Judge.

ORDER

Yvette Kane, District Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Before the Court in the above-captioned action is the December 11, 2023 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bloom (Doc. No. 10), recommending that the Court dismiss with prejudice pro se Plaintiff Evan David Smith (“Plaintiff”)'s complaint in the above-captioned case upon a statutorily-mandated screening review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because: (1) the defendants sued by Plaintiff are entitled to immunity from his claims; and (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 10 at 5.)¹No timely objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.²

1 Magistrate Judge Bloom's Report and Recommendation acknowledges that, before dismissing a complaint under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must grant the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). Here, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Bloom that leave to amend would be futile given the material flaws in Plaintiff's complaint against the defendants. (Doc. No. 10 at 5-9.)

2 Plaintiff filed a “motion for default judgment” on December 12, 2023. (Doc. No. 11.) Given that Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal with prejudice pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, as well as a motion filed on November 14, 2023 (Doc. No. 8), which appears to be a duplicate of his complaint, will be denied as moot.

AND SO, on this 5th day of January 2024, upon independent review of the record and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 10) of Magistrate Judge Bloom;

2. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

3. Plaintiff's “motion to petition the court” (Doc. No. 8) and “motion for default judgment” (Doc. No. 11) are DENIED AS MOOT; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.