Black v. The City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 9 of Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson in its entirety, DISMISSING pltf's complaint 1 with prejudice, directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case & noting any appeal from this order deemed frivolous & not taken in good faith. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 8/11/14. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANTOINE M. BLACK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HARRISBURG, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-0965
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2014, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 9) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, granting the motion (Doc. 3)
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by pro se plaintiff Antoine M. Black
(“Black”) but recommending that the court dismiss Black’s complaint with
prejudice pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and also
for failure to state a meritorious claim, (see Doc. 9 at 8-25) and, following an
independent review of the record, the court being in full agreement with the
magistrate judge that Black’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are identical to
those previously dismissed with leave to amend in Black v. City of Harrisburg, Civil
No. 1:11-cv-1912 (M.D. Pa.), and finally with prejudice upon plaintiff’s abandonment
of his causes of action by failing to file an amended complaint within the time
period allotted by the court, see id., and are thus barred by the doctrines of res
judicata and collateral estoppel, and the court also agreeing with the magistrate
judge that Black’s claims are nonetheless meritless for all of the reasons stated in
the court’s dismissal of Black’s prior civil case, see id., and reiterated by the

magistrate judge in his report, (see Doc. 9 at 11-25), and also agreeing that
amendment could not cure the many deficiencies identified in the report because
Black has not articulated a viable civil rights claim despite numerous opportunities
to do so, but merely repeats allegations previously declared to be meritless, see
Fletcher-Hardee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007)
(observing that leave to amend should ordinarily be granted unless amendment
would be futile or result in undue delay), and noting that Black filed objections1
(Doc. 10) to the report on June 13, 2014, and the court further finding Black’s
objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Carlson’s report, it
is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 9) of Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED in
its entirety.

2.

Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

4.

Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in
good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

1

When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
the district court performs a de novo review of the contested portions of the report.
See Behar v. Pa. Dep’t of Trans., 791 F. Supp. 2d 383, 389 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (citing
Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)).
In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires written objections to “specifically
identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which
objection is made and the basis for those objections.” LOCAL RULE OF COURT 72.3;
also Behar, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 389 (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. No. 07-417, 2008
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74519, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008).