Olson v. Finley

• Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 21, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00387
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY OLSON, : Civil No. 1:21-CV-387 : Petitioner, : : v. : : SCOTT FINLEY, : : Respondent. : Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

O R D E R Before the court are Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 11) to Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) recommending Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Enlargement (Doc. 1) be denied. “When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of the report to which objections are made,” while reviewing the remainder for clear error. Weidman v. Colvin, 164 F. Supp. 3d 650, 653 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (internal citations omitted). Petitioner’s only substantive objection is that the R&R erred in finding that Petitioner, as a pro se litigant, could not serve as a class representative. As the Third Circuit has noted, however, “it is well settled that pro se inmates are not permitted to represent a class of litigants.” Mincy v. Deparlos, 497 F. App’x 234, 238 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 159 (3d Cir. 2009)). Thus, this objection fails as a matter of law and will be overruled. Petitioner also raises multiple factual and legal objections, but they boil down to ad hominem and

pejorative attacks. (See Doc. 11, p. 1 (“Judge Carlson, who works for the Department of [J]ustice . . . appears to be biased in his findings.”), p. 2 (“The bias this Judge is exhibiting is very clear. . . [I]t is all the lies told by the Warden and the

BOP.”), p. 3 (“Judge Carlson is ignoring all evidence presented by the petitioners. . . This is corruption at a high level.”)) Because such objections “make absolutely no meritorious legal attack on the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations,” instead relying on “ad hominem attacks,” the court “shall not address the inarticulate and

unavailing arguments contained therein.” Cluck-U Corp. v. Docson Consulting, LLC, No. 1:11-CV-1295, 2011 WL 4072987, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2011). Absent Petitioner’s objections, the remainder of the R&R lacks any clear error.

As such, the R&R’s recommendations are hereby ADOPTED. Petitioner’s request for class certification, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and alternative Motion for Enlargement, are hereby DENIED. The Clerk of Court is therefore ORDERED to CLOSE this case.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo SYLVIA H. RAMBO United States District Judge

Dated: July 21, 2021