Opinion
4:23-CV-1706
04-30-2024
GEORGE HENRY WHALEY, JR., Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant.
ORDER
Robert D. Mariani, United States District Judge
AND NOW, THIS 30th DAY OF APRIL 2024, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 15), Plaintiffs “Answer” thereto (Doc. 16), and all other relevant documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Strictly construed, Plaintiffs document entitled “Answer to Report & Recommendation” (Doc. 16) fails to meet the requirements necessary to rise to the level of an Objection. If a party timely and properly files a written objection to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the District Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. at § 636(b)(1)(C); see also, Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193,195 (3d Cir. 2011); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3. Here, while Plaintiffs “Answer” was timely filed, he has not identified with any specificity the portions of the R&R, proposed findings, or recommendations to which he objects. Nonetheless, construing Plaintiffs “Answer” in the most liberal manner, and giving Plaintiff every benefit, the Court has performed a de novo review of the R&R.
1. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 16) are OVERRULED. Plaintiffs “Answer to Report & Recommendation” (Doc. 15) is untethered to the applicable law and presents only baseless and unsupported arguments. Plaintiffs only statement relevant to the present action and the pending R&R is that “it is a LIE' that the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA has never been served.” (Doc. 16, at 2). In support of this statement, Plaintiff attaches a “Proof of Service” stating that he sent a summons in this case on March 16,2024 to the Lycoming Court of Common Pleas, by certified mail (see Doc. 16-2). However, as Judge Bloom correctly explained, under the facts of this case, Pennsylvania does not permit service upon the Commonwealth by mail. (Doc. 15, at 3-4). Furthermore, regardless of whether Plaintiff properly served the Commonwealth, the Court agrees with Judge Bloom that Whaley's filings do not establish “any of the narrow circumstances ... conferring subject matter jurisdiction on this court over Whaley's state criminal matter.” (Id. at 3). Having conducted a de novo review of the R&R, this Court finds Judge Bloom's analysis to be supported by well-established legal principles, and Plaintiffs Objections to be without merit.
2. The R&R (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.
3. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.