Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03413/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03413-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-3413

___________

DAVID L. SMITH,

 Appellant

v.

SWEDEN VALLEY, LLC; CHRISTOPHER BRENNEN;

FREDERICK P. MILLIRON; ALAN M. ACKER, POA;

UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, A-Z 

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 4-14-cv-01617)

District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 3, 2016

Before: JORDAN, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 7, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-3413 Document: 003112226172 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2016
2

David L. Smith appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Pennsylvania, which, granted summary judgment for the Defendants. 

We will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Writing primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the record and proceedings 

in this case, we review only those facts that are especially pertinent to our analysis. 

Smith filed a complaint in the District Court asking for specific performance of a 

purported contract of sale for a hotel business and associated real and personal property. 

In the alternative, he asserted claims of damages against the Defendants1for fraudulent 

misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement. The assigned Magistrate Judge 

recommended granting the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.2 After de novo 

review, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in 

full. Smith timely appealed.

The District Court had diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We 

exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the order granting 

summary judgment de novo, using the same standard as the District Court.3 See Pichler 

 

1 Smith named Sweden Valley, LLC, Christopher Brennen (its manager and sole 

member), Frederick P. Milliron (former owner of the real estate) and his agent Alan M. 

Acker, as Defendants.

2 The Magistrate Judge also recommended denying the Defendants’ motions for 

sanctions. The District Court adopted that recommendation, and the Defendants have not 

appealed that ruling.

3 When, as here, the plaintiff fails to make objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, we normally review the District Court’s decision for plain error. 

Case: 15-3413 Document: 003112226172 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2016
3

v. UNITE, 542 F.3d 380, 385 (3d Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is appropriate when 

the movant demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Material 

facts are those that could affect the outcome of the proceeding, and a dispute about a 

material fact is genuine if the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to return a 

verdict for the nonmoving party.” Roth v. Norfalco LLC, 651 F.3d 367, 373 (3d Cir. 

2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We agree with the District Court that the Defendants were entitled to summary 

judgment. Smith argues that the facts are in dispute, but he has not referenced any 

material facts that might entitle him to relief on the merits. 

First, Smith has not produced any written agreement for sale of the property, 

which is a prerequisite for specific performance of an agreement to sell real estate under 

Pennsylvania law. See 33 P.S. § 1. Smith’s argument that no written agreement was 

necessary because the transaction was governed by “bulk sales” laws is frivolous. Smith 

has not provided any legal support for that claim.

 

See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 (3d Cir. 2011). However, because the 

Report and Recommendation and attached Notice did not inform Smith that failure to 

object could result in waiver of appellate review, and because the District Court exercised 

plenary review, we will do the same. Cf. id. (plain error review where plaintiff failed to 

object and Report and Recommendation “explicitly stated that failure to object ‘may 

constitute a waiver of any appellate rights’”).

Case: 15-3413 Document: 003112226172 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/07/2016
4

Second, Smith’s fraudulent inducement claim fails because he did not show that 

any of the Defendants knowingly made a materially false representation.4 Smith alleges 

that Defendant Christopher Brennen falsely claimed that he was “not aware of any 

discrepancies in the boundaries between the legal description and the actual property” 

and that “the language in the [Sweden Valley,] LLC deed would control.” But Smith can 

point to no record evidence that would suggest that Brennen was aware of any problems 

with the title,5 nor any evidence that Brennen intended to mislead Smith by stating his 

belief about which deed language would control.

Third, Smith’s Conspiracy to Commit Fraud claim fails because Smith can point 

to no record evidence showing that the previous owner of the property, and/or his 

attorney-in-fact, conspired with Brennen and Sweden Valley to defraud Smith.

For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons explained in the Report and 

Recommendation (which was adopted by the District Court), we will affirm the District 

Court’s judgment.6

 

4 Under Pennsylvania law, a claim of fraudulent inducement or misrepresentation 

requires: “(1) a representation; (2) which is material to the transaction at hand; (3) made 

falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4) 

with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the 

misrepresentation; and (6) the resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance.”

EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc., 618 F.3d 253, 275 (3d Cir. 2010).

5 Brennen notes in his brief here that “[t]here is no indication in the record that any 

question or issue was raised as to title during any of [various] ownerships spanning some 

67 years.” Brief of Appellees, Sweden Valley, LLC and Christopher Brennen, at 20.

6 Smith spends most of his reply brief complaining that the Magistrate Judge lacked the 

Case: 15-3413 Document: 003112226172 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/07/2016
5

 

authority to decide his case. We discern no error in the procedure here. Under Rule 

73.1(d) of the District Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure, civil cases may 

automatically be assigned to a Magistrate Judge and a District Court Judge upon filing. 

When Magistrate Judge Blewitt retired, the case was temporarily assigned to Magistrate 

Judge Carlson, and then later reassigned to Magistrate Judge Saporito, who prepared the 

Report and Recommendation here. Magistrate Judge Saporito had the authority to 

prepare a Report and Recommendation as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Further, 

even if there had been some issue with the manner in which Magistrate Judge Saporito 

was assigned to this case, Smith was not in any way prejudiced by the assignment, as 

District Court Judge Brann generously undertook a plenary review of the Report and 

Recommendation, despite the fact that Smith neglected to interpose any objections to the 

Report. See Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 193 (3d Cir. 2007) (failure to object to 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations may result in waiver of right to 

appellate review).

Case: 15-3413 Document: 003112226172 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/07/2016