Proctor v. Susquehanna Township Borough et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY E. PROCTOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP
BOROUGH, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:24-CV-02008
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is the report and recommendation of retired United States
Magistrate Judge William Arbuckle recommending that Plaintiff’s amended
complaint, Doc. 11, be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for
failure to state a claim without leave to amend. (Doc. 12.) Judge Arbuckle further
recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s claim for false arrest against the police officers
and relevant municipality should be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s
ability to pursue that claim after his criminal case is resolved; and (2) Plaintiff’s
claim for retaliation and access to the courts against Dauphin County Prison
employees should be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to pursue
those claims in a separate action. (Id.) Plaintiff filed an “objection to report and
recommendation and an amended complaint,” which is difficult to read. (Doc. 13.)
However, the court has carefully reviewed this document and will liberally
construe it as general objection to the report and recommendation.
Case 1:24-cv-02008-JPW Document 14 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 2

2
When a party raises only general objections to a report and recommendation,
a district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of the report and
recommendation. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). “To obtain de
novo determination of a magistrate’s findings by a district court, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) requires both timely and specific objections to the report.” Id. at 6.
Thus, when reviewing general objections to a report and recommendation, the
court’s review is limited “to ascertaining whether there is ‘clear error’ or ‘manifest
injustice’” on the face of the record. Boomer v. Lewis, No. 3:06-CV-00850, 2009
WL 2900778, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2009).
The court has reviewed Judge Arbuckle’s report and recommendation and
finds no clear error or manifest injustice on the face of the record. The objection,
to the extent the court can read the handwriting, merely expresses disagreement
with Judge Arbuckle’s analysis and reasserts the allegations contained in the
complaint. Accordingly, the court will adopt the report and recommendation, Doc.
12, and dismiss the amended complaint, Doc. 11, without leave to amend. An
appropriate order will follow.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: February 17, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-02008-JPW Document 14 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 2