HVIZDAK v. CITIZENS BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA et al

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 71 Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement with Exhibits the Objections to the Report and Recommendation; granting 46 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; adopting 67 Report and Recommendations as the Opinion of the Court, and Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 6/18/15. (rtw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD C. HVIZDAK,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
V.
)
)
CITIZENS BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA, )
RBS CITIZENS, NA, CITIZENS
)
)
FINANCIAL GROUP, NAS, ROYAL
BANK OF SCOTLAND, SENIOR V.P.
)
)
KAREN D. BUDNIAK,
Defendants.
)

Civil Action No. 14-406
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell/
District Judge Maurice B. Cohill

MEMORANDUM ORDER
MAURICE B. COHILL, United States Senior District Judge.
This action was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County on
March 26, 2014. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell for
pretrial proceedings in accordance with Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rules of Court 72.C and 72.D.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss [ECF No. 46] on December 1, 2014. The
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 67] filed May 19, 2015
recommended that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted, and Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with prejudice. See Rep. and Rec. [ECF No. 67] at 1. Service of the Report and
Recommendation was made on all parties. The parties were informed that in accordance with
the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local Rule of Court 72.D.2
they had until June 2, 2015 to file any objections. Plaintiff timely filed objections thereto on
May 29, 2015 [ECF No. 68], and an Addendum on June 2, 2015 [ECF No. 69] to which
Defendants responded on June 9, 2015 [ECF No. 70]. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Further

Supplement with Exhibits the Objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 71],
which we hereby GRANT.
We find that Plaintiffs objections are without merit and are overruled. We concur with
Magistrate Judge Mitchell that allowing the Plaintiff to amend the complaint would be futile, as
he lacks standing. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [ECF No. 39] will be dismissed with
prejudice.
Accordingly, the following Order is hereby entered.

After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in this case, together with the
Report and Recommendation, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this

I K /.Lt..

day of June, 2015, it is HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 46] is GRANTED and Plaintiffs complaint is
dismissed with prejudice;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Robert C. Mitchell [ECF No. 67] is hereby adopted as the Opinion of the District Court and the
Clerk is to mark this CASE CLOSED.

By the Court,

m~u;_ l ~~

Thet'Ionorable Maurice B. Cohill
United States Senior District Judge

2

¥·

cc:

The Honorable Robert C. Mitchell
United States District Court
Western District of Pennsylvania
Richard C. Hvizdak, prose
110 South Main St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15220

Counsel for Defendant
Robert J. Hannen, Esquire
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
US Steel Tower
600 Grant Street, 44th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2788

3