Unum v. Lake Mead National Recreational Area et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 9/9/14. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MAZZEO UNUM,

:

Plaintiff

:

v.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-1632
(Judge Mannion)
LAKE MEAD RECREATIONAL
AREA, et al.,

:
:

Defendants

:
MEMORANDUM

Before the court is the report and recommendation of Judge Carlson,
(Doc. 5), recommending that the complaint of plaintiff be dismissed. The case
arises from a complaint, (Doc. 1), filed on August 20, 2014, in which plaintiff
Mazzeo Unum lists nine defendants, all situated in Nevada. His complaint
does not amount to a factual narrative, nor does it provide any coherent
statement of what behavior, actions, or incidents plaintiff complains of.
Plaintiff has not submitted objections to the report. As the complaint does not
raise a discernible claim, the court adopts the report of Judge Carlson.

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of

a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of
the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). 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. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa.
2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
For those sections of the report and recommendation to which no
objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also
Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.
2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)
(explaining that judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not,
the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

II.

DISCUSSION
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds

for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) and (2). As
Judge Carlson’s report indicates, the complaint in this matter does not provide
a short and plain statement of the claim, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. In
2

fact, it is impossible to glean the crux of the complaint, as it is made up of
seemingly random references to attached exhibits, with no mention of any of
the defendants or explanation of the facts giving rise to the complaint. Plaintiff
instead lists a variety of medical ailments from which he suffers, names
various federal statutes which he apparently believes have been violated, and
names nine defendants, all of whom are located in Nevada and none of whom
are mentioned in the complaint apart from merely being listed as the
defendants. The complaint is not comprehensible, a circumstance which
justifies dismissal under Rule 8. See Roy v. Supreme Court of U.S., 484
F.App’x 700, 700 (3d Cir. 2012).
While the incomprehensibility of the complaint is alone sufficient to
justify dismissal, the court agrees with the other reasons Judge Carlson poses
for dismissing the complaint, including that some of the named defendants
are not appropriate institutional defendants, and that venue is not proper in
this district, as none of the defendants reside in this district and it is
impossible to determine where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.
See 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).
Finally, it is true that generally, the court should grant leave to amend
a complaint before dismissing it as merely deficient. See, e.g.,
Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252
(3d Cir. 2007); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.
2002); Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 (3d Cir. 2000). "Dismissal
3

without leave to amend is justified only on the grounds of bad faith, undue
delay, prejudice, or futility." Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 236 (3d Cir.
2004). Here, the court agrees with Judge Carlson's determination that
granting plaintiff leave to amend the complaint would be futile in light of the
incomprehensibility of the complaint and plaintiff's history of filing similarly
nonsensical complaints in district courts. See Mazzeo-Unum v. Soc. Sec.
Admin., 2011 WL 5554364 (Oct. 4, 2011 N.D.N.Y); Unum v. Soc. Sec.
Admin., 2011 WL 5554310 (Nov 15, 2011 N.D.N.Y.); Mazzeo-Unum v. Dept.
of Transp., 2013 WL 2636159 (Jun. 12, 2013 N.D.N.Y.); Unum ex rel.
Neuro-Med. Diagnostic Care Servs. P.c. v. Dept. of Transitional Assistance,
2014 WL 1572799 (Apr. 18, 2014 N.D.N.Y.).
For the above reasons, the report of Judge Carlson is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. Leave to amend is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to close the case. A separate order shall issue.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge

Date: September 9, 2014
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2014 MEMORANDA\14-1632-01.wpd

4