Christine Long Bright Shingara, et al. v. Frank Garrigan, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTINE LONG BRIGHT SHINGARA, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-00925

v. (MEHALCHICK, J.) FRANK GARRIGAN, et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiffs Christine Shingara, Adam Shingara, and Erica Shingara (together “the Shingaras”) commenced this action against seven individuals and entities on May 23, 2025. (Doc. 1). The Shingaras also filed a collective motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). On May 29, 2025, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo denied the collective motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and directed the Shingaras to file individual motions or pay the filing fees within 21 days. (Doc. 4). Copies of the May 29th order were returned as undeliverable, with notations indicating the Shingaras’ address on the docket was “insufficient.” (Doc. 5; Doc. 6; Doc. 7). Almost a year later, the Shingaras have not complied with the May 29, 2025 order, updated their address, or indicated a desire to continue litigation by prosecuting this action. (Doc. 8, at 2). Presently before the Court is a report and recommendation filed by Judge Caraballo recommending that the Court dismiss and close this suit for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 8). In his report and recommendation, Judge Caraballo informed the Shingaras that they had fourteen days to file an objection to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 8, at 10-11). No objections to the Report have been timely filed. Having reviewed the reasoning of the report and recommendation and relevant law, the Court will ADOPT it in its entirety. (Doc. 8). “A district court may ‘designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition’ of certain matters pending before the court.” Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)). Within fourteen

days of being served a Report and Recommendation, “any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party timely files objections, the district court is to conduct a de novo review of the challenged portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings unless the objection is “not timely or not specific.” Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir.1984); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Although the standard is de novo, the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.” Rahman v.

Gartley, No. CV 3:23-363, 2024 WL 555894, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)). The Court agrees with the sound reasoning of the report and recommendation and discerns no error of law. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the report and recommendation (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the opinion of the Court. The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE all Defendants and CLOSE this case.

Dated: May 13, 2026 s/ Karoline Mehalchick KAROLINE MEHALCHICK United States District Judge