Yan v. Pennsylvania State University

Filing 83

ORDER: ADOPTING the report and recommendation 79 of Magistrate Judge Schwab; GRANTING defendant's motion to dismiss 45 ; DISMISSING with prejudice plaintiff's amended complaint [42-1]; DENYING as moot plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal 82 ; DIRECTING the clerk to CLOSE the case file. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 6/29/15. (km)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
YAN YAN,
Plaintiff
v.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 4:14-CV-01373
(Judge Brann)

(Magistrate Judge Schwab)

ORDER
June 29, 2015
BACKGROUND:
On November 2, 2014, pro se Plaintiff Yan Yan filed an amended complaint
(ECF No. 42-1) against Defendant Pennsylvania State University, raising claims
pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments Act, 20 U.S.C. §1681, et seq.;
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.; the Age
Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §6101, et seq.; the Pennsylvania Fair Educational
Opportunities Act, 24 P.S. §5001, et seq.; and personal injury under 18 U.S.C.
§2255. Plaintiff also seeks remedies under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for alleged violations
of her rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

1

Constitution. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No.
45).
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, who issued a
report and recommendation on May 7, 2015, recommending that Defendant’s
motion to dismiss be granted and that all of Plaintiff’s claims in her amended
complaint be dismissed. On May 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a
time extension to file objections to Magistrate Judge Schwab’s report and
recommendation. The Court granted Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extension of
Time to Motion to Reconsider the Court Orders,” extending the deadline to file
objections to June 9, 2015.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to appeal (ECF No. 82), which this
Court will construe as a general objection to the report and recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. The Court has therefore reviewed de novo Magistrate Judge
Schwab’s disposition on Plaintiff’s complaint.
Magistrate Judge Schwab exhaustively reviewed every facet of the
Plaintiff’s claims. Because this Court agrees with her analysis, the undersigned will
not rehash her sound reasoning, but will instead adopt the report and
recommendation in its entirety (ECF No. 79).

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Schwab (ECF No. 79)
is ADOPTED in full.
2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 42-1) is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
4. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal (ECF No. 82) is DENIED as moot.
5. The clerk is directed to close the case file.

BY THE COURT:

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

3