Frank Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc., et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FRANK TUFANO,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-316

v. (SAPORITO, J.) (CARABALLO, M.J) SHOPIFY (USA) INC., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER Now before the court is a report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo in which he recommends that the plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed and this action be closed. (Doc. 11). On February 21, 2025, the plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint alleging fraud against several corporate defendants. (Doc. 1). That same day, he filed a motion to proceed , (Doc. 2), and the Court granted that motion to proceed on April 7, 2025. (Doc. 5). The Court, however, also held service of the plaintiff’s complaint in abeyance until it conducted its obligatory screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). ( ). On January 26, 2026, the Court conducted a screening of the plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and identified several

deficiencies in that complaint. (Doc. 7). With the Court’s permission, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2026. (Doc. 8). However, the Court noticed that while the plaintiff had petitioned

for, and was provided, leave to proceed in this action because he allegedly could not pay the filing fee, he had also filed numerous other actions in this Court in which he paid that fee. (Doc. 11)

(listing cases). Therefore, on March 10, 2026, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why his status should not be revoked, or to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 9). The plaintiff failed to respond

to that Order, and on May 22, 2026, the Court revoked his status and ordered him to pay the full filing fee by June 4, 2024, or risk dismissal of this action. (Doc. 10). The plaintiff has since still not

paid the filing fee or otherwise corresponded with the Court. Accordingly, Judge Caraballo recommends dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and otherwise comply with the Court’s orders. (Doc. 11).

No timely objections have been filed to the report and recommendation, resulting in the forfeiture of de novo review by this court. , 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007); , 812 F.2d 874, 878–79 (3d Cir. 1987).

Following an independent review of the report and the record, and having afforded “reasoned consideration” to the uncontested portions of the report, , 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017),

we are satisfied “that there is no clear error on the face of the record,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment. We find Judge Caraballo’s analysis to be well-reasoned and fully supported by the

record and applicable law. Accordingly, the court will adopt the report and recommendation in its entirety as the decision of the court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The report and recommendation of Judge Caraballo (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED in its entirety; 2. The plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 8) is DISMISSED;

and 3. The Clerk of Court shall close the case.

Dated: August 11, 2026 JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR. United States District Judge