La’Keya Keo v. York County Judicial Center

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LA’KEYA KEO, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-1233 : Plaintiff : (Judge Neary) : v. : : YORK COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER, : : Defendant :

ORDER This matter comes before the court upon the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 6) of Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella, wherein Judge Latella recommends this court dismiss plaintiff La’Keya Keo’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In response to the R&R, Keo filed a document the court will liberally construe as objections, (Doc. 7), but these objections are largely ramblings about Keo being separated from her children, rather than any specific criticisms of Judge Latella’s R&R. Objections to R&R’s are reviewed de novo when they are made timely and are specific. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6 (3d Cir. 1984). When general objections are made, the R&R shall be sustained absent “clear error or manifest injustice.” Glob. Tower, LLC v. Hamilton Twp., 897 F. Supp. 2d 237, 249 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (citing Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376-77 (M.D. Pa. 1998)). Keo offers no specific objections to Judge Latella’s R&R. Rather, she vaguely asserts various groups and entities are responsible for separating her from her children, and that they discriminated against her. (See Doc. 7). The court finds no clear errors in Judge Latella’s R&R. Rather than a legal pleading, Keo’s amended complaint (Doc. 5) would be more accurately characterized as a list of grievances with the actions of various officials and it fails to set forth any specific facts forming

the basis of a legal claim. Further, as Judge Latella noted, Keo has a history with this court of filing rambling documents that fail to state a claim. (Doc. 6 at 10). Given that history and that she was already offered one opportunity to amend her pleading, dismissal with prejudice is warranted. Therefore, AND NOW, 29th day of May, 2025, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Judge Latella’s R&R (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 5) is dismissed with prejudice.

3. To the extent it is a separate motion, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 7) is DENIED.

4. Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

5. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

/S/ KELI M. NEARY Keli M. Neary United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania