Hamilton et al v. Centre County Tax Claim Bureau et al

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 1 Complaint filed by Harry E Hamilton, Harry Hamilton Living Trust ; granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting Report and Recommendations re 22 Report and Recommendations.Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 10/2/18. (ep)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HARRY E. HAMILTON,
NO. 3:17-CV-01853
Plaintiff,
(JUDGE CAPUTO)

v.
CENTRE COUNTY TAX CLAIM
BUREAU, et al.,

(MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MEHALCHICK)

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before me is Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (Doc. 22) regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6). Plaintiff Harry E.
Hamilton, proceeding pro se, sued Defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking
to set aside the 2017 tax sale of his home. (Doc. 22 at 1-2; Doc. 1 at ¶ 18). Magistrate
Judge Mehalchick recommends that all of Hamilton’s claims except his equal protection
claims based on gender and race be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 22 at 9).
Defendants timely objected to the R&R, arguing the case is now moot, and attached to their
objection a recent order from the Centre County Court of Common Pleas setting aside the
tax sale and staying any future tax sale of Hamilton’s home. (Doc. 24 at 2, 6).
If objections to a magistrate judge's R&R are filed, I must conduct a de novo review
of the contested portions. Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). I 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 me to rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent I deem it
proper. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675–76 (1980). 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). At the least, courts 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).
I also have the obligation to ensure this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Nesbit
v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 77-78 (3d Cir. 2003). “If developments occurring
during the course of adjudication eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a
suit, then a federal court must dismiss the case as moot.” Rosetti v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 1216,
1223-24 (3d Cir. 1993). Here, a state court has already fully granted the relief Hamilton
seeks: setting aside the tax sale of his home. That moots this case. Ernst v. Child & Youth
Servs. of Chester Cty., 108 F.3d 486, 491 (3d Cir. 1997); Fairview Park Excavating Co. v.
Al Monzo Const. Co., 560 F.2d 1122, 1126-27 (3d Cir. 1977). Dismissal, however, will be
“without prejudice to any other federally cognizable complaint” Hamilton may have. Woody
v. Judge, 435 F.2d 706 (3d Cir. 1970) (per curiam); see Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote
Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007) (district courts should grant
leave to amend in civil rights cases, especially those involving pro se plaintiffs).
Accordingly, NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2018, upon review of the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick (Doc. 22), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is ADOPTED as modified herein.

(2)

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED.

(3)

Hamilton’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

(4)

The matter is RECOMMITTED to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for further
proceedings.

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

2