Boldrini v. Wetzel, et al.

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:(1)Magistrate Judge Blewitts Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED.(2)Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED with prejudice.(3)The Clerk of Court is directed to mark the case as CLOSED.Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 5/7/14. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTONELLO BOLDRINI,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-13-2485

Plaintiff,

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

v.

(MAGISTRATE JUDGE BLEWITT)
LEWIS WETZEL, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before

the

Court

is Magistrate

Judge

Blewitt’s

Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 13) to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Blewitt
recommends that the Amended Complaint be dismissed. In particular, Magistrate Judge
Blewitt identifies the following defects in the Amended Complaint: (1) this Court cannot
order the arrest and prosecution of Defendants for violating federal criminal statutes; (2)
Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because there is no alleged involvement by a federal
actor; (3) Plaintiff’s pre-September 30, 2011 claims are time-barred; (4) many of Plaintiff’s
constitutional claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; (5) Defendant state court
judges, officials of the state court system, and prosecutors are entitled to immunity; and (6)
Plaintiff fails to adequately state claims for conspiracy. Magistrate Judge Blewitt also
recommends that the action be dismissed with prejudice because it would be futile to allow
Plaintiff a second opportunity to amend his pleading.
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation were originally due on
February 3, 2014. Plaintiff, however, was given an extension until February 24, 2014 to file
objections. (Doc. 15.) On February, 24, 2014, Plaintiff again requested additional time to
file objections, (Doc. 16), and he was granted until March 27, 2014 to file objections. (Doc.
17.) Thereafter, Plaintiff again sought additional time to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, (Doc. 19), and he was directed to file objections “on or before April 27,
2014.” (Doc. 20.)

Plaintiff, however, has yet to file objections to the Report and

Recommendation, and he has failed to request additional time to file same.

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)). However, this only applies to the
extent that a party's objections are both timely and specific. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7
(3d Cir. 1984) (emphasis added). In conducting a 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 law 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, 100 S. Ct. 2406, 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 (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, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (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).
Here, as noted, Plaintiff failed to file timely objections to the Report and
Recommendation despite being afforded three extensions to do so. As such, the Report
and Recommendation is ripe for review.
Accordingly, finding no clear error in the Report and Recommendation, and further
noting that an independent review of the Amended Complaint demonstrates that Plaintiff
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1)

Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is
ADOPTED.

(2)

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED with prejudice.

(3)

The Clerk of Court is directed to mark the case as CLOSED.

May 7, 2014
Date

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge
2