Hudson v. Ness et al

Filing 5

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting 4 Report and Recommendations. (Attachments: # 1 R&R)(eo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RONDELL HUDSON,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE HARRY NESS, et al.,
Defendants.

1:13-cv-2207

Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Martin C. Carlson

ORDER
September 11, 2013
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Chief
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 4) filed on August 22, 2013
recommending that pro se Plaintiff Rondell Hudson’s (“Plaintiff” or “Hudson”)
complaint be dismissed, but with leave to amend. Objections to the R&R were due
by September 9, 2013, and to date none have been filed. Accordingly, this matter
is ripe for our review. For the reasons that follow, we shall adopt the R&R in its
entirety.

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
1

When, as here, no objections are made to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report
before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). According to the
Third Circuit, however, “the better practice is to afford some level of review to
dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874,
878 (3d Cir. 1987). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating
“the failure of a party to object to a magistrate's legal conclusions may result in the
loss of the right to de novo review in the district court”); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F.
Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D.
Pa. 1998); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The Court’s
examination of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge’s determinations.
II.

DISCUSSION
In the instant matter Hudson seeks monetary damages against state court

judges, a state agency, and a municipality for injuries allegedly caused by domestic
relations rulings adverse to him made in state court. Magistrate Judge Carlson
undertook a review of the pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and

2

recommends its dismissal with leave to amend. For the reasons that follow, we
agree.
Pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack the
jurisdiction to review state court adjudications, where the plaintiff’s alleged
injuries were caused by the state court judgment. Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263
U.S. 413, 416 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462, 476 (1983). Magistrate Judge Carlson concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint
invites us to review and reject adverse state court rulings in a domestic relations
case. Pursuant to the dictates of Rooker-Feldman, we lack the ability to do so.
Thus, dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims are warranted. See Kwasnik v. Leblon, 228
F.App’x 238, 242 (3d Cir. 2007).
Next, Magistrate Judge Carlson engaged in a thorough analysis of the
immunities available to the named Defendants. In this matter, Plaintiff seeks to
hold two state judges, Defendants Judge Harry Ness and Judge Clarence Patterson,
liable for civil rights violations based on their judicial rulings. However, it is well
settled that judicial officers, and those performing adjudicative functions, are
protected by immunity. See Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 440 (3d Cir.
2000). Further, Plaintiff named the City of York as a Defendant and attributed the
state court actions to the municipality. However, as explained by the Magistrate
3

Judge, the City of York cannot be held liable for actions of state judges. See
Wattie-Bey v. Attorney Gen.’s Office, 424 F. App’x 95, 97 (3d Cir. 2011).
Finally, Magistrate Judge Carlson found that the state agencies named by the
Plaintiff as Defendants are shielded from suit by the Eleventh Amendment to the
United States Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment grants the states sovereign
immunity in federal court and that immunity can only be relinquished by express
waiver or congressional action. See Coll. Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid
Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 670 (1999). When suit is
brought against a state agency or a state official, it is as though suit was brought
against the state itself. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974). It therefore
follows that the protections of sovereign immunity extend from the state to protect
state agencies and officials. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S.
89, 99 (1984). Thus, because York Pennsylvania Children and Youth is a state
agency, it is protected from this lawsuit by sovereign immunity.
As we have already mentioned, Plaintiff has not filed objections to this
R&R. Because we agree with the sound reasoning that led the Magistrate Judge to
the conclusions in the R&R, we will adopt the R&R in its entirety. We agree with
the Magistrate Judge that, given the Plaintiff’s pro se status, it is appropriate to
grant him one final opportunity to amend his complaint. With a mind towards
4

conserving judicial resources, we will not rehash the reasoning of the Magistrate
Judge; rather, we will attach a copy of the R&R to this document, as it accurately
reflects our consideration and resolution of the case sub judice.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc.
4) is ADOPTED in its entirety.

2.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3.

Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days
from the date of this Order.

4.

This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for all
further pre-trial management.

s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

5