Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Reid

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 4 MOTION to Remand filed by Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 4 MOTION to Remand filed by Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 3/10/2025. (ve)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DWAYNE A. REID, JR.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:24-CV-01683

Judge Jennifer P. Wilson

MEMORANDUM
Before the court is the report and recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge
Daryl F. Bloom recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to remand be granted and
that this matter be remanded back to the Court of Common Pleas of York County.
(Doc. 12.) Plaintiff objects to one aspect of the report and recommendation,
specifically, that this matter was removed from York County Magisterial District
Court No. 19-1-01 and, thus, should be remanded to that court. (Doc. 13.) For the
reasons that follow, the court will adopt the report and recommendation in part and
grant the motion to remand to York County Magisterial District Court No. 19-1-01.
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court is required to conduct a de novo review of the contested portions of
the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);
Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989). The district court may
accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in
1

whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Although the standard is de novo, the
extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the
court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it
deems proper.” Weidman v. Colvin, 164 F. Supp. 3d 650, 653 (M.D. Pa. 2015)
(citing Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F. Supp. 2d 496, 499 (M.D. Pa. 2000)). For the
uncontested portions of the report and recommendation, the court affords
“reasoned consideration” before adopting it as the decision of this court. City of
Long Branch, 866 F.3d at 100 (quoting Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878).
Here, a review of the notice of removal and original complaint indicates that
this case should be remanded back to the York County Magisterial District Court
No. 19-1-01, as it was removed from that court. Thus, the court will sustain
Plaintiff’s objection to that aspect of the report and recommendation. Further, for
the uncontested portions of the report and recommendation, the court finds Chief
Judge Bloom’s analysis is well-reasoned and fully supported by the record and
applicable law.

2

Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the court will adopt in part the
report and recommendation, sustain Plaintiff’s objection, and remand this case to
the York County Magisterial District Court No. 19-1-01. An appropriate order will
issue.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Court Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: March 10, 2025

3