1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DENNIS KLEIN, : No. 3:06-0038

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Jones)

:

v. :

: (Magistrate Judge Mannion)

GENENE HOPKINS and :

DOROTHY POOLE, :

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

May 11, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On April 18, 2006, Magistrate Judge Mannion filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending that the Defendants’, Genene Hopkins and

Dorothy Poole (collectively “Defendants”), Motion to Dismiss (“the

Motion”)(doc. 4) be granted and that the Plaintiff Dennis Klein (“Plaintiff”) be

directed not to file any further complaints, related to the subject matter contained in

the instant action and the case filed to docket number 3:04-1501, unless preapproved by the court prior to filing. 

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report were due on May 2, 2006 and

to date none have been filed. This matter is now ripe for disposition. 

Case 4:06-cv-00038-JEJ Document 9 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 5
2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On January 6, 2006, the Plaintiff filed the instant pro se civil action. (Rec.

Doc. 1). On March 8, 2006, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (doc. 4). 

Thereafter the Motion was fully briefed by the parties. On April 18, 2006,

Magistrate Judge Mannion filed a Report and Recommendation (doc. 8)

recommending that we grant the Defendants’ Motion.

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

When no objections are made to a magistrate’s report, the district court is

not statutorily required to review a magistrate judge’s report before accepting it. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). According to the Third Circuit,

however, “the better practice is to afford some level of review to dispositive legal

issues raised by the report.” Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.

1987). When a district court accepts a magistrate judge’s report, the report

becomes the judgment of the court. Id. 

DISCUSSION:

Our review of this case confirms Magistrate Judge Mannion’s determinations

and well-reasoned analysis, and while we have not been presented with any reason

to revisit them, we do reiterate the salient aspects of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 

Case 4:06-cv-00038-JEJ Document 9 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 5
3

First, Magistrate Judge Mannion notes that the instant action appears to be an

attempt to re-file an action, naming other defendants, which was previously

dismissed due to the failure of the Plaintiff to both follow court orders and to state

a claim upon which relief could be granted. Magistrate Judge Mannion’s review of

the complaint reveals that it states no facts, but only cites to various laws. The

complaint does not indicate how the laws were violated or what the Defendants are

alleged to have done that would raise a legal claim against them. Magistrate Judge

Mannion therefore correctly recommends that the Motion be granted for failure to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Second, Magistrate Judge Mannion recommends that the complaint be

dismissed for failure to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the

instant action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) requires

that the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction to appear on the fact of the

complaint. As Magistrate Judge Mannion correctly notes, the Plaintiff indicates in

the complaint that the Defendants violated four statutes, none of which provides a

federal jurisdictional basis for a civil cause of action against the Defendants, and

accordingly the Motion should be granted with respect to these claims.

Finally, Magistrate Judge Mannion recommends that we deny any attempts

by Plaintiff to amend his complaint or to file further complaints related to the

Case 4:06-cv-00038-JEJ Document 9 Filed 05/11/06 Page 3 of 5
4

subject mater contained in the instant action and the prior action. Magistrate Judge

Mannion recounts this Court’s history with the Plaintiff in detail, including multiple

unsuccessful attempts to get Plaintiff to submit documentation that would

somewhat comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and put the

Defendants on some type of reasonable notice. In light of this Magistrate Judge

Mannion surmises, and we wholly agree, that it is apparent that it would be futile to

allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint to conform with the Federal Rules. While

pro se litigants such as Plaintiff must obviously be given wider berths within which

to operate, they are not excused from some modicum of adherence to the Federal

Rules. Plaintiff has repeatedly displayed that he is either unwilling or unable to

adhere to even the low threshold established for litigants acting on their own,

without the benefit of counsel. Providing him with additional opportunities to get

this right is an entirely unavailing resolution.

Our review of this case obviously confirms Magistrate Judge Mannion’s

determinations. Because we find no error in Magistrate Judge Mannion’s Report

and Recommendation and because no objections have been filed, we will adopt it

as our own for the reasons cited herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Magistrate Judge Mannion’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 8) is

Case 4:06-cv-00038-JEJ Document 9 Filed 05/11/06 Page 4 of 5
5

GRANTED in its entirety.

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint (doc. 4) is

GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff is directed not to file any further complaints, related to the

subject matter contained in 3:04-1501 and 3:06-0038, unless preapproved by the Court prior to filing.

4. The Clerk is directed to close the file on this case.

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00038-JEJ Document 9 Filed 05/11/06 Page 5 of 5