Sanders v. Downs et al
MEMORANDUM Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 6/26/13. (jam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CYRUS R. SANDERS,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08-CV-1560
(MAGISTRATE JUDGE MANNION1)
STEPHEN DOWNS, et al.,
Presently before the Court are: motions for summary judgment filed by former
Bradford County District Attorney Stephen Downs (Doc. 110) and Pennsylvania State Police
(“PSP”) Trooper John Kern, Jr. (Doc. 115), the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of
Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion (Doc. 123), and Plaintiff Cyrus Sanders’ objections
(Doc. 129). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Court grant the moving Defendants’
summary judgment motions and also grant summary judgment sua sponte in favor of
Defendant Cynthia Dunlap. For the reasons below, the R & R will be adopted.
Factual and Procedural Background
On January 9, 2006, the PSP arrested Sanders at his residence in Bradford County,
Pennsylvania pursuant to a fugitive warrant issued by Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The
officers at the scene, including Trooper Kern, searched Sanders’ property and seized
several items. Sanders claims that he refused the officers’ requests to search his property,
but they coerced or conspired with Dunlap, a co-occupant of his residence, to obtain
permission to do so, even though she lacked authority to give such permission. The PSP
asserts that its officers, who knew that the stolen property that had prompted the arrest
warrant had not yet been recovered, sought and received permission to search Sanders’
The caption reflects Judge Mannion’s office as a Magistrate Judge when he
issued the Report and Recommendation here under review. He has since
become a United States District Judge.
property from Dunlap, who identified herself as his common law wife and demonstrated
control over the property by opening locked doors for them. Sanders was subsequently
convicted of receiving stolen property and has been incarcerated since June 2006.
Sanders alleges that on October 14, 2008, he received a sworn statement from
Dunlap’s son that revealed that the search, seizure, and arrest conducted in January 2006
was the result of coercion or an illegal conspiracy. Specifically, Sanders alleges that Dunlap
was caught inside their home with methamphetamine and Trooper Kern agreed to overlook
the contraband if she gave the PSP permission to search the residence and property.
Accordingly, he alleges that the PSP conducted the search and seizure without valid
consent or probable cause and violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
On August 20, 2008, Sanders commenced this action by filing a pro se Complaint
alleging numerous violations of his federal constitutional rights. (Doc. 1.) He brought claims
against four general groups of defendants: police officers from the PSP and Bradford
County, including Trooper Kern; prosecutors from Bradford and Sullivan Counties, including
former District Attorney Downs; various officials of the Bradford County Court of Common
Pleas; and Dunlap. He filed an Amended Complaint on April 3, 2009 (Doc. 21), which
various Defendants moved to dismiss (Docs. 41, 45, 47, 53). In a Memorandum and Order
dated March 9, 2010 (Doc. 70), the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s R & R (Doc. 58)
and dismissed the Amended Complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the dismissal in part and vacated in part, remanding Sanders’ Fourth
Amendment unlawful search claims to the Court for further proceedings. (Docs. 80–81.)
On December 21, 2011, an order was entered directing Defendants Kern and Dunlap
to answer Sanders’ Amended Complaint by January 10, 2012 and setting the deadline for
dispositive motions for May 2, 2012. (Doc. 100.) Former District Attorney Downs moved
for summary judgment on May 1, 2012 (Doc. 110), and Trooper Kern did likewise the
following day (Doc. 115). On October 10, 2012, the Magistrate Judge notified Sanders of
his intent to consider a sua sponte grant of summary judgment in favor of Dunlap and
directed Sanders to file a brief in opposition (Doc. 122); Sanders failed to do so. On
November 5, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a R & R recommending that the Court
grant the moving Defendants’ summary judgment motions and also grant summary
judgment sua sponte in Dunlap’s favor. (Doc. 123.) Sanders did not file objections to the
R & R, and the Court adopted the R & R on January 24, 2013. (Doc. 125.)
On March 11, 2013, the Court received a letter from Sanders seeking additional time
to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s R & R, which he claimed he had not received. (Doc.
126.) Sanders then filed a Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief on March 15, 2013. (Doc. 127.)
The Court granted the motion on June 5, 2013 and entered an order vacating its January
24, 2013 order and allowing Sanders to file objections to the R & R by June 26, 2013. (Doc.
128.) Sanders filed objections on June 24, 2013. (Doc. 129.) The R & R is thus ripe for
The Magistrate Judge’s R & R (Doc. 123)
On November 5, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a R & R concerning the moving
Defendants’ summary judgment motions.
The Magistrate Judge first
recommends that the Court grant former District Attorney Downs’ summary judgment
motion because Sanders has neither alleged nor adduced any evidence showing that he
authorized or participated in any way in the January 2006 search of Sanders’ property. (Id.
at 8.) Next, the Magistrate Judge recommends granting Trooper Kern’s summary judgment
motion because he reasonably relied upon the consent of Dunlap, the undisputed coinhabitant of Sanders’ property, in searching the property. (Id. at 9–13.) The Magistrate
Judge also noted that the record was devoid of evidence supporting Sanders’ assertion that
Dunlap’s consent was coerced by Trooper Kern or the PSP. (Id. at 12–13.)
In addition to his recommendations on the pending summary judgment motions, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant summary judgment sua sponte in
Dunlap’s favor because Sanders has not presented any evidence showing that she acted
under color of state law. (Id. at 13–14.) Although Sanders alleges that the search of his
property was the result of a conspiracy between Dunlap and Trooper Kern, he has not
supported this allegation with any evidence. (Id.)
Sanders’ Objections to the R & R (Doc. 129)
On June 24, 2013, Sanders filed objections to the R & R. (Doc. 129.) Sanders
contends that members of the Bradford County District Attorney’s Office willfully engaged
in reckless misconduct by supplying false information to the PSP regarding multiple thefts
of his property, including several motor vehicles, that were allegedly committed by Dunlap
and others between March and August of 2006. (Id. at 1–4.) He also asserts that the
Bradford County DAs injected themselves into a private property dispute by ordering the
PSP not to investigate the thefts, which they repeatedly claimed were civil in nature. (Id.
at 3.) Sanders states that prosecutorial immunity does not protect the Bradford County DAs
and seeks discovery to investigate these matters further. (Id. at 6.)
Legal Standard for Reviewing a Report and Recommendation
Where objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report are filed, the court must conduct
a de novo review of the contested portions of the report, Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099,
1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)), provided the objections are both
timely and specific, Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). In making its de novo
review, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Owens v. Beard, 829
F. Supp. 736, 738 (M.D. Pa. 1993). Although the review is de novo, the statute permits the
court to rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.
See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675–76 (1980); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7; Ball v.
United States Parole Comm’n, 849 F. Supp. 328, 330 (M.D. Pa. 1994). Uncontested
portions of the report may be reviewed at a standard determined by the district court. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7. At the very least, the court
should review uncontested portions for clear error or manifest injustice. See, e.g., Cruz v.
Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376–77 (M.D. Pa. 1998). As such, the Court reviews the portions
of the R & R to which the petitioner objects de novo. The remainder of the R&R is reviewed
for clear error.
Although Sanders advances several arguments in his objections to the R & R, none
respond to any of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. Instead, as detailed above,
he attempts to show that members of the Bradford County District Attorney’s Office
committed fraud by recklessly providing false information to the PSP concerning thefts that
Dunlap allegedly committed against him between March and August of 2006. As these
objections are irrelevant to the Magistrate Judge’s R & R or any remaining issues in this
matter, the Court will not entertain them. Having reviewed the R & R for clear error or
manifest injustice and finding none, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s
For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge’s R & R will be adopted. The
Court will grant the summary judgment motions filed by former District Attorney Downs
(Doc. 110) and Trooper Kern (Doc. 115). Additionally, the Court will grant summary
judgment sua sponte in favor of Dunlop and against Sanders.
An appropriate order follows.
June 26, 2013
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge
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?