Mark Jonathan Vargo v. Peoples Gas Co.

Opinion

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

MARK JONATHAN VARGO, ) )

) No. 2-26-cv-792-RJC-MPK Plaintiff, )

) v. ) District Judge Robert J. Colville

) PEOPLES GAS CO., ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER OF COURT Currently pending before the Court is the May 20, 2026 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) filed by the Honorable Maureen P. Kelly in the above-captioned matter. Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). It further recommends that dismissal be with prejudice to refiling in this Court, but without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling his state law claims in state court, if appropriate. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by June 8, 2026. No objections were filed, and the Court considers this matter to be ripe for disposition. “The Federal Magistrates Act provides two separate standards of judicial review of orders on matters referred to magistrate judges.” Alarmax Distributors, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 2:14-cv-1527, 2015 WL 12756857, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). A district court reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s decision on non-dispositive matters to

determine whether any part of the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Objections to a magistrate judge’s disposition of a dispositive matter are subject to de novo review before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The reviewing district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which objections are made. Id. Following de novo review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained that, “even absent objections to the report and recommendation, a district court should ‘afford some level of review

to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,’” and has “described this level of review as ‘reasoned consideration.’” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)). Upon reasoned consideration of Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 3), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: The Court agrees with the thorough and well-reasoned analysis set forth in Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. This case is hereby dismissed with prejudice to refiling in this Court. This dismissal is entered without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling his state law claims in state court, if appropriate. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Robert J. Colville_______ Robert J. Colville United States District Judge

DATED: June 18, 2026

cc: All Counsel of Record

Mark Jonathan Vargo 427 Patton Street Wilmerding, PA 15148