ROUSE v. II-VI INCORPORATED et al

Filing 49

ORDER OF COURT ADOPTING 42 Report and Recommendation as the final Opinion of this Court. 7 15 17 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff this same day. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 8/26/2013. (lcb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMBROSIO ROUSE,
Plaintiff,

13cv0065
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
II-VI INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
Defendants.
ORDER OF COURT RE: PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO JUDGE EDDY’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 43)
This case centers on alleged employment discrimination and attorney and judicial
misconduct. Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint on January 14, 2013. Doc. No. 1. Defendants
moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety. Doc. Nos. 7, 15, 17. On August 8, 2013,
United States Magistrate Judge Eddy filed a Report and Recommendation that recommended that
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss be granted and the case closed. Doc. No. 42. Plaintiff has
timely filed Objections to Judge Eddy’s Report and Recommendation and urges this Court not to
adopt Judge Eddy’s Report and Recommendation in any respect. Doc. No. 43.
Judge Eddy recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety because
Plaintiff’s claims are: (1) foreclosed by claim and issue preclusion; (2) prohibited by the RookerFeldman doctrine; (3) barred against judicial defendants by judicial immunity; and (4) barred by
the applicable statute of limitations for claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985.
Plaintiff assails the Report and Recommendation, in part, because Judge Eddy “had the goal and
[deliberate] intention of leaving [discussion of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Responses in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss] out.” As noted by Judge Eddy, she did not reach
1

the facts of Plaintiff’s Complaint because they have been thoroughly addressed by previous
Judges including Judge McVerry of the United States District Court of the Western District of
Pennsylvania and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. E.g., Rouse v. II-Vi
Inc., 2008 WL 2914796 (W.D. Pa. 2008), aff’d WL 1337144 (3d Cir. 2009). This Court agrees
with Judge Eddy that the entirety of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by threshold issues that do not
relate to Plaintiff’s specific factual averments. Therefore, discussion of these facts is
unnecessary both in the Report and Recommendation and this Court’s Order. As explained by
Judge Eddy in her Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed with
prejudice because amendment would be futile.
Finally, Plaintiff also objects to actions taken by Judge Eddy in the pre-trial process
including not granting a request for oral argument, which Plaintiff contends demonstrates that
she abused her discretion. This Court finds no merit for Plaintiff’s claims.
AND NOW, this 26th day of August 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s
Objections to Judge Eddy’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 43) are OVERRULED.
The Court ADOPTS Judge Eddy’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 42) as the final
Opinion of this Court. Therefore, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 7, 15, 17) are
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge

cc:

All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties

2