Simpson v. Dauphin County Housing Authority et al
ORDER ADOPTING report 18 of Magistrate Judge Saporito; GRANTING in part & DENYING in part defts' MTD 11 as set forth in Paras 2-5 herein, inc. - complaint 1 DISMISSED w/ prejudice on sovereign immunity grounds to extent Simpson asserts s tate law claims for breach of contract & wrongful eviction, complaint 1 DISMISSED w/out prejudice for failure to state claim to extent Simpson asserts claim for violation of 24 CFF 982.201 vs all deft & 42 USC 1983 vs Dauphin Co Housing Auth, motio n 19 for addt'l time to amend complaint GRANTED... (see specific instructions Para 4), if Simpson does not file amended complaint as auth by Para 4 matter shall proceed on initial complaint & remaining claims pursuant to 42 USC 1983 against defts Stewart Aldinger & Ingrid Shuey; matter REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Saporito for further pretrial management. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/31/17. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHALMERS A. SIMPSON, JR.,
DAUPHIN COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1747
(Chief Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 2017, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 18) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending the court grant
defendants’ motion (Doc. 11) to dismiss certain claims asserted in the complaint (Doc.
1) of pro se plaintiff Chalmers A. Simpson, Jr. (“Simpson”), to wit: Simpson’s claims
for breach of contract, wrongful eviction, and violation of 24 C.F.R. § 982.201 against
all defendants, and Simpson’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant
Dauphin County Housing Authority, but further recommending that Simpson’s
claims against individual defendants Stewart Aldinger and Ingrid Shuey be
permitted to proceed, (see Doc. 18 at 5-15), and it appearing that neither party has
objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), but that Simpson has requested
additional time to file an amended pleading addressing the deficiencies identified by
the magistrate judge, (Doc. 19), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely
object to a magistrate judge’s conclusions “may result in forfeiture of de novo review
at the district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing
Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of
good practice, a district court should “afford some level of review to dispositive legal
issues raised by the report,” Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878; see also Taylor v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v.
Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to “satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record,” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory
committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court in
agreement with Judge Saporito’s recommendation, and concluding that there is no
clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:
Defendants’ motion (Doc. 11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part
as set forth in the following paragraphs.
Simpson’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice on
sovereign immunity grounds to the extent Simpson asserts state law
claims for breach of contract and wrongful eviction.
Simpson’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for
failure to state a claim to the extent Simpson asserts claims for violation
of 24 C.F.R. § 982.201 against all defendants and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the Dauphin County Housing Authority.
Simpson’s motion (Doc. 19) for additional time to amend his complaint is
GRANTED. Simpson may file an amended complaint with respect to
the claims set forth in paragraph 3 above within thirty (30) days of the
date of this order. Any amended pleading filed pursuant to this
paragraph shall be filed to the same docket number as the instant
action, shall be entitled “First Amended Complaint,” and shall be
complete in all respects. It shall be a new pleading which stands by
itself as an adequate complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, without reference to the counts hereinabove dismissed.
If Simpson does not file an amended complaint as authorized by
paragraph 4 above, this matter shall proceed on his initial complaint
(Doc. 1) and his remaining claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
defendants Stewart Aldinger and Ingrid Shuey.
This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Saporito for further
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?