Emrit v. Lycoming Housing Authority et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. and GRANTING Defendants Lycoming Housing Authority and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Motions to Dismiss 9 15 . The Clerk of Courts is directed to close this case. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 6/9/2017. (jn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff,
v.
LYCOMING HOUSING
AUTHORITYand UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No.: 4:16-CV-02022
(Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Saporito)

ORDER
JUNE 9, 2017
Before the Court for disposition is a Report and Recommendation filed by
Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. on May 17, 2017.1 In this Report,
Magistrate Judge Saporito recommended that (1) Defendants U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and Lycoming Housing Authority’s pending
motions to dismiss be granted; (2) Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit’s complaint be
dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and lack
of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); and (3) the Clerk

1

ECF No. 22.

- 1-

be directed to close this case.2 No objections to this Report and Recommendation
have since been filed.
Upon designation, a magistrate judge may “conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of
fact and recommendations.”3 Once filed, this Report and Recommendation is
disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written
objections.4 Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, 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.”5 Nevertheless,
whether timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, reject or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.6
Following independent review of the record, I am satisfied that the Report
and Recommendation contains no clear facial error. In the interests of judicial
economy, I will not rehash Magistrate Judge Saporito's sound reasoning and legal
citation. The Court is in full agreement that Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit’s

2

Id.

3

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).

4

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

5

Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
6

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

- 2-

Complaint has failed to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) with
respect to Lycoming Housing Authority, lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) with respect to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and should be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.7
AND NOW, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 22) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY;
2. Defendants Lycoming Housing Authority and U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development’s Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 9 & 15) are
GRANTED;
3. The Clerk of Courts is directed to close this case.
BY THE COURT:

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

7

I note that, while the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that
civil rights plaintiffs must be permitted a curative amendment, such amendment would in this
case be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). As noted
in Magistrate Judge Saporito’s Report, Plaintiff has filed a myriad of cases throughout the
country alleging nearly identical claims. In the cases thus far decided, Plaintiff’s claims have
been dismissed with prejudice against U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
pursuant to sovereign immunity, see Emrit v. Marion Cnty. Housing Auth., Civil Action No. 16CV-01854, 2017 WL 743882, at *9 (D. Or. Feb. 23, 2017), and against local public housing
agencies due to Plaintiff’s failure to allege facts showing that a housing Voucher or request to be
placed at the head of the waiting list was denied “because of his alleged disability.” See Emrit v.
Providence Housing Auth., Civil Action No. 16-CV-543, 2016 WL 7639117, at *4 (D.R.I. Oct.
25, 2016)(report and recommendation), adopted by 2017 WL 52572 (D.R.I. Jan. 4, 2017).

- 3-