Lee Morgan v. The City of Scranton

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LEE MORGAN,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-00978

v. (MEHALCHICK, J.)

THE CITY OF SCRANTON, Defendant. ORDER Plaintiff Lee Morgan (“Morgan”) initiated this pro se action on June 13, 2024, by filing a complaint. (Doc. 3). On June 20, 2024, Morgan filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 4). On October 3, 2024, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle issued an order to show cause ordering Morgan to provide proof of service by October 31, 2024. (Doc. 6). On October 9, 2024, Morgan provided proof of service for his original complaint but not his amended complaint. (Doc. 7). On March 11, 2025, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo issued an order to show cause directing Morgan to provide proof of service of the amended complaint or to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. 8). Morgan never filed proof of service or otherwise responded to Judge Caraballo’s order. On April 23, 2026, Judge Caraballo issued a report and recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice to Morgan’s ability to file a separate action for failure to serve process and for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 9). Judge Caraballo advised Morgan he had fourteen days to file an objection. (Doc. 9, at 12). Morgan did not file a timely objection. As such, the Court will ADOPT the report and recommendation. (Doc. 9). “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)). For those sections of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Adv. Comm. Note Rule 72(b). The Court agrees with the sound reasoning in the report and recommendation and finds no clear error on the face of the record. (Doc. 9). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Caraballo’s report and recommendation (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of the Court. The Court DISMISSES this

action without prejudice to Morgan’s ability to file a separate action. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. BY THE COURT:

Dated: May 29, 2026 /s/ Karoline Mehalchick KAROLINE MEHALCHICK United States District Judge