NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 23-1197 

__________ 

DANIEL L. SPUCK, 

 Appellant 

v. 

MARY KATHRYN SALYNSKI, ESQUIRE 

____________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-22-cv-00344) 

District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon

____________________________________ 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

April 21, 2023 

Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: April 21, 2023) 

___________ 

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.
2 

 Daniel Spuck, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint. For the reasons 

that follow, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

 Without explanation, Spuck filed a notice of appeal from an order of the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which the District Court directed the Clerk of Court to file 

as a civil rights complaint. Dkt. Nos. 2 at 2 & 3 at 1-3. The District Court, over Spuck’s 

objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge and dismissed 

the complaint as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, without prejudice to Spuck’s 

ability to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Dkt. 

Nos. 7 & 9. Spuck filed a timely notice of appeal. Dkt. No. 12. 

 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over 

the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of Spuck’s complaint. Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 

F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). 

 First, to the extent Spuck requested the District Court to review an order of the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the District Court was correct to dismiss that request based 

on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1257, 1331-32; Phila. Fed’n of 

Teachers v. Ridge, 150 F.3d 319, 323 (3d Cir. 1998) (“It is the plaintiffs’ responsibility to 

clearly allege facts that invoke the court’s jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted). Second, 

though his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R included more information than his 

initial filing, see Dkt. Nos. 6 & 8, Spuck’s bare-bone references to a state court 
3 

proceeding involving the same defendant named here are insufficient to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted,1

 see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

 Finally, Spuck argues on appeal that, because the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil 

Procedure are ineffective and invalid, a state judge erred in awarding damages pursuant 

to those rules in a state court proceeding in which Spuck was involved. C.A. Dkt. No. 4 

at 3-4. That argument is underdeveloped and meritless. See Pa. Const. art. V, § 10(c) 

(providing power to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to prescribe rules); Dockery v. 

Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp., Inc., 253 A.3d 716, 721-22 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021) (where 

plaintiff’s constitutional attack on state procedural rules was not properly mounted 

because she failed to contend that the state Supreme Court lacked any rational basis for 

adopting the rule at issue). 

 Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

1

 Our review is limited to the record before the District Court, which did not include 

specific information about the state court proceeding. See In re Capital Cities/ABC, 

Inc.’s Application for Access to Sealed Transcripts, 913 F.2d 89, 96 (3d Cir. 1990). We 

do not search unspecified state court records in an attempt to clarify an appellant’s 

arguments.