The Elam Family v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 8 of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle, DISMISSING pltf's complaint 1 w/out prejudice, granting pltf leave to amend pleading w/in 20 days of date of this order, setting forth instructions re: form/content of amended pleading , directing Clrk of Ct to close action in absence of timely filed amended complaint & noting any appeal from this order deemed to be frivolous & not take in good faith. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/17/18. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE ELAM FAMILY,
Plaintiff
v.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1790
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of September, 2018, upon consideration of the
report (Doc. 8) of Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, issued following review of
the complaint (Doc. 1) of pro se plaintiff “the Elam Family”1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), wherein Judge Arbuckle recommends the court dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim for which relief may be
granted, and it appearing that plaintiff has not objected to the report, see FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure 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

1

Plaintiff Rashaan-mechelle:elam purports to prosecute the instant lawsuit
on behalf of her entire family. Plaintiff is not an attorney and cannot represent
someone other than herself in federal court. Accordingly, we construe plaintiff’s
complaint as having been brought on her own behalf and not on behalf on any
member of her family.

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 independent review of the record, the court in agreement with
Judge Arbuckle’s recommendation, and the court thus concluding that there is no
clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 8) of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle is ADOPTED.

2.

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

3.

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her pleading within twenty (20)
days of the date of this order.

4.

Any amended pleading filed pursuant to paragraph 3 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
complaint (Doc. 1) hereinabove dismissed.

5.

In the absence of a timely-filed amended complaint, the Clerk of Court
shall close the above-captioned action.

6.

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