Chinniah et al v. East Pennsboro Township et al

Filing 78

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 71 Report and Recommendations, ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick; for Pretrial Management.; granting 36 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 40 M otion to Dismiss; granting 43 Motion to Dismiss; denying 46 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for further pre-trial management. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 15-2240. (pw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GNANA M. CHINNIAH, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:15-cv-02240
(Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick,
recommending that Defendants’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss be
granted. (Doc. No. 71.) The Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
On November 23, 2015, Plaintiffs Gnana M. Chinniah and Suganthini Chinniah filed a
civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for, inter alia, violations of the
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.1 (Doc. No. 1.) On August 10, 2016, Magistrate
Judge Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court: (1)
grant Defendants’ four separate motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 22, 36, 40, 43); (2) dismiss with
prejudice Plaintiffs’ access to courts, equal protection, illegal search, and procedural due process
claims; and (3) dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs’ retaliation, Section 1985, and state law
claims.
On August 24, 2016, Plaintiffs filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
(Doc. Nos. 72, 73.) In their objections, Plaintiffs challenge: whether Magistrate Judge

1

Plaintiffs’ complaint names the following Defendants: East Pennsboro Township,
Jeffrey S. Shultz, Karen Dunkle, James Hertzler, John Kuntzelman, Christopher Underhill, the
Law Offices of Hartman Underhill & Brubaker, Joshua Autrey, Jeffrey Conrad, the Law Offices
of Clymer Musser & Conrad, the Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau, and the Cumberland
County Housing and Redevelopment Authorities. (Doc. No. 1.)
1

Mehalchick drew all reasonable inferences from the complaint in the light most favorable to
Plaintiffs (Doc. No. 73 ¶¶ 1, 4, 5-6, 9); whether the complaint adequately alleged that
Christopher Underhill, the Law Offices of Hartman Underhill & Brubaker, Joshua Autrey,
Jeffrey Conrad, and the Law Offices of Clymer Musser & Conrad are state actors under Section
1983 (id. ¶ 4); whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies (id. ¶¶ 3, 7-8); and whether the
complaint adequately alleged violations of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable searches and First Amendment right of access to the courts (id. ¶¶ 6, 9). Two
responses in opposition to Plaintiffs’ objections were filed on September 6, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 74,
75.) Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on September 16, 2016. (Doc. No. 77.)
The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Mehalchick correctly and comprehensively
addressed the substance of Plaintiffs’ objections in the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No.
71); Ohler v. Lamas, 542 F. App'x 205, 207 (3d Cir. 2013). The Court will not write separately
to address Plaintiffs’ objections. ACCORDINGLY, upon independent review of the record and
applicable law, on this 29th day of September 2016, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 71), is
ADOPTED;
2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 22, 36, 40, 43) are GRANTED as
follows:
a. Plaintiffs’ access to the courts, equal protection, illegal search, and
procedural due process claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
b. Plaintiffs’ retaliation and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claims are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
c. All state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
Plaintiffs’ ability to refile these claims in state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3);

2

3. Plaintiffs’ are given thirty (30) days leave to amend their complaint and to re-assert
their remaining claims in accordance with Rule 8(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
4. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order denying recusal (Doc. No.
46), is DENIED; and
5. The above-captioned action is referred back to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for
further pre-trial management.
s/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

3