1

 The Court is aware that the correct spelling of this Defendant’s last name is “Nahas” as

opposed to “Nattas” as written in the caption. For the remainder of the opinion we will refer to

Defendant Nahas by her proper name.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SYDNEY L. POPE, : No. 05cv2450

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Jones)

:

v. :

: (Magistrate Judge Blewitt)

BERNADETTE NATTAS, et al., :

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

January 6, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On November 25, 2005, Plaintiff, Sydney L. Pope (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at

Schuylkill County Prison (“SCP”) filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 and §1985. (Rec. Doc. 1). The action is against five Defendants, in their

individual and official capacities, namely, Bernadette Nahas, District Magistrate

Judge for Frackville1

; unnamed Frackville Police Chief; Police Officer Hands of

the Frackville Police Department (“FPD”); Police Officer Little of the FPD; and

Frackville Borough Council. The Plaintiff also filed a Motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Rec. Doc. 2).

Case 4:05-cv-02450-JEJ Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 7
2

 Plaintiff met with the Defendant Chief and Defendant Hands to discuss a protection

from abuse order and Plaintiff alleges that the “Chief of Police with malicious and direct threats

insisted that the Plaintiff . . . make drug buys for him in his area and also in the Shenandoah

Borough.” (Rec. Doc. 1 at 4)

3

 Plaintiff alleges that he was not driving his car but that he loaned his car to a friend who

was driving his car. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hands never saw him drive the car while

under suspension. (Rec. Doc. 1)

2

 On December 14, 2005, Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii) as against all of the Defendants. 

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report were due on December 30, 2005

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Plaintiff alleges that on August 23, 2005, he told Defendant Hands that, due

to his color and race, the FPD Chief had no right to insist that he make undercover

drug buys for the benefit of the FPD.2

 Plaintiff alleges that since he refused to help

the FPD, the Chief instructed Defendant Hands to file a charge against Plaintiff for

driving while under suspension.3

 Plaintiff alleges that at a preliminary hearing on

the charge, Defendant District Magistrate Judge Nahas did not accept his evidence

in the nature of his friend’s testimony that he (the friend) was driving Plaintiff’s

car. Plaintiff also alleges that at this hearing that Magistrate Nahas mentioned an

unrelated subject regarding the custody of Plaintiff’s daughter and that Magistrate

Case 4:05-cv-02450-JEJ Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 7
3

Nahas “openly informed the Plaintiff to give up his parental right.” (Rec. Doc. 1 at

2). Plaintiff further alleged that he was convicted on the driving while suspended

charge on the basis of his color and race and that the “black Assistant District

Attorney” who prosecuted his case “has already discriminated against the Plaintiff

in other cases pending in court.” (Rec. Doc. 1 at 5).

Plaintiff also alleges that he was charged with harassment by the FPD and

State Police, and that five days before his hearing, the County Work Release

Coordinator told him that Magistrate Nahas agreed to let Plaintiff participate in the

work release program if the plaintiff agreed to set up a payment plan for the

harassment charge, which had not been adjudicated at that time. Plaintiff alleges

that since he was offered work release prior to his actual conviction, his hearing

was scheduled in violation of due process. (Rec. Doc. 1 at 5).

Plaintiff further alleges that since December 2003 to present, he asked the

entire FPD for assistance in enforcing his custody order granting him partial

custody of his daughter, but they refused to help him “due to the outright

intimidation, oppressing and the right to equal protection of the law.” (Rec. Doc. 1

at 5-6).

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

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

Case 4:05-cv-02450-JEJ Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 7
4

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 Blewitt’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. 

First, Magistrate Judge Blewitt finds that the complaint against all

Defendants is subject to dismissal pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of

1995 (“PLRA”). Under the PLRA, this Court is obligated to engage in a screening

process when a prisoner wishes to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 to determine if the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, or if the action seeks monetary damages against a defendant

who is immune from such relief. (Rec. Doc. 7 at 4).

With respect to Defendant Magistrate Nahas, Magistrate Judge Blewitt finds

that she is entitled to absolute immunity from this lawsuit because all of Plaintiff’s

Case 4:05-cv-02450-JEJ Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 4 of 7
5

allegations against her regard her official duties in presiding over the Plaintiff’s

criminal cases, and therefore the complaint should be dismissed as against her. See

Garrett v. Nesbitt, 1998 WL 531841 at *6 (E.D. Pa. 1998).

With respect to Defendant Police Officer Little, Magistrate Judge Blewitt

correctly notes that since the Plaintiff makes no allegations specifically against this

Defendant in his pleading that the complaint should be dismissed against him.

Magistrate Judge Blewitt explains that Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim against

the Defendants pursuant to §1985(3) is insufficiently pled because the Plaintiff

alleges a conspiracy took place due to an unspecified agreement to further

prejudice him against him due to his color and race. To properly state a claim

under §1985(3), “[t]he Plaintiff’s allegations [of conspiracy] must be supported by

facts bearing out the existence of the conspiracy and indicating its broad objectives

and the role each Defendant allegedly played in carrying out those objectives.” We

wholly agree with Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s determination that the conspiracy

claim under §1985(3) should be dismissed against all Defendants because he has

failed to sufficiently plead facts in his complaint to support such an allegation.

Further, Magistrate Judge Blewitt explains that Plaintiff’s malicious

prosecution claim against Defendant Police Officer Hands and Defendant Chief of

FPD should be dismissed because Defendant Hands had probable cause to arrest

Case 4:05-cv-02450-JEJ Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 5 of 7
6

Plaintiff for driving while under suspension.. We agree with Magistrate Judge

Blewitt’s finding that Defendant Hands’ eyewitness account of the driving incident

gave him probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, and therefore Plaintiff’s malicious

prosecution claim against Defendant Hands and the Chief of the FPD will be

dismissed.

Finally, we agree with Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s determination that

Defendant Frackville Borough Council (“FBC”)is not an appropriate defendant in a

§1983 suit because it cannot be considered a “person” under §1983. Furthermore,

there is no municipal liability alleged against the FBC. Therefore, the complaint

will be dismissed as against the FBC.

 Magistrate Judge Blewitt recommends that although a pro se prisoner

should be freely granted leave to amend a pleading, in this case the Plaintiff has

failed to state a cognizable claim against any Defendants and therefore any

amendment would be futile. (Rec. Doc. 7 at 9). Our review of this case obviously

confirms Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s determinations. Because we find no error in

Magistrate Judge Blewitt’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 Blewitt’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 7) is

Case 4:05-cv-02450-JEJ Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 6 of 7
7

GRANTED in its entirety.

2. The complaint (doc. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety.

3. The Clerk is directed to close this file.

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02450-JEJ Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 7 of 7