Murchison v. United States Of America et al

Filing 50

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 40 Report and Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab is ADOPTED in FULL; Plaintiff's 44 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is DENIED; Plaintiff's 47 Motion to Stay is DENIED; Plaintiff's 48 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED; and The Clerk is directed to close this case file. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 9/18/2017. (jn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH MURCHISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No.: 4:13-CV-02587
(Judge Brann)
(Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab)

ORDER
SEPTEMBER 18, 2017
To conserve judicial resources and prevent redundancy, the Court will not
summarize what the Chief Magistrate Judge correctly and efficiently has set forth
for review. Briefly, the Court notes that after Plaintiff’s filing of the initial
Complaint more than four years ago,1 he has still failed to assert any factual
allegations upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has been given repeated
opportunities –with instruction by the Chief Magistrate Judge – to cure the
deficiencies in his complaints. Nevertheless, each subsequent complaint and
motion remains utterly devoid of facts upon which to base a cognizable claim.
Accordingly, the Court will adopt the thorough, and legally correct, outcome
of the Report and Recommendation written by Chief Magistrate Judge Susan E.

1
See ECF No 1, filed on Oct. 18, 2013.

Schwab. The Court notes that it has conducted an independent de novo review of
the matter and has reached the same ineluctable conclusion as did the Chief
Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 40).
AND NOW, this 18th day of September 2017, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1.

Chief Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab’s December 9, 2016 Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 40) is ADOPTED in FULL.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No.
44) is DENIED.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 47) is DENIED.2

4.

Upon considering the factors set forth in Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147,
155-56 (3d Cir. 1993), Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF
No. 48) is DENIED.3

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case file.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

2
Given the generous and repeated opportunities by the Magistrate Judge for Plaintiff to cure
the deficiencies in his pleadings and his inability to do so, granting a stay would only delay
another presumably meritless Motion or Complaint by Plaintiff.
3
Plaintiff has not asserted any factual allegations for this Court to find his claims to have
merit. Therefore, Plaintiff has not met the initial threshold to permit further inquiry as to
whether he should be appointed counsel, as the first Tabron factor sets forth.

2