Hill v. UMPC Collections

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY HILL, 	: 	Civ. No. 4:24-CV-1600
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: 	(Judge Munley)
v. 	:
: 	(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
:
UPMC COLLECTIONS, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Factual and Procedural Background
This case was referred to the undersigned on January 13, 2026. Upon review
we note that the plaintiff’s initial pro se complaint was dismissed on October 21,
2025. (Doc. 40). On November 3, 2025, Hill filed a 103-page amended complaint.
(Doc. 42). 	The Court, Camoni, M.J., then briefly stayed proceedings while it
considered this amended pleading. (Doc. 44).
In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment at the
very inception of proceedings on this amended complaint which sought judgment in
Hill’s favor as a matter of law claiming that the facts are completely undisputed prior
to any substantive response to the amended complaint by the defendants, or any
Case 4:24-cv-01600-JKM-MCC Document 49 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 6

2
factual discovery. (Doc. 46). Because we regard this summary judgment motion as
entirely too premature at this nascent stage of the litigation, we recommend that this
motion be denied without prejudice to renewal at the close of discovery.1
II. 	Discussion
The plaintiff has moved for summary judgment at the outset of litigation on
this amended complaint pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which provides that the court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows
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). Through summary adjudication,
a court is empowered to dispose of those claims that do not present a “genuine
dispute as to any material fact,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), and for which a trial would be
“an empty and unnecessary formality.” Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc.,
702 F.Supp.2d 465, 468 (M.D. Pa. 2010).
The moving party has the initial burden of identifying evidence that it believes
shows an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec.
& Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004). In making this determination, the
Court must “consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing
1 We will by separate order prescribe a case management schedule in this case.
Case 4:24-cv-01600-JKM-MCC Document 49 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 6

3
the motion.” A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Schs., 486 F.3d 791, 794 (3d Cir. 2007).
Further, it is emphatically not the province of the court to weigh evidence or assess
credibility 	when 	passing 	upon 	a 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment. 	Rather, 	in
adjudicating the motion, the court must view the evidence presented in the light most
favorable to the opposing party, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, and draw all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Big Apple BMW,
Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir. 1992).
Additionally, the court is not to decide whether the evidence unquestionably favors
one side or the other, or to make credibility determinations, but instead must decide
whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence
presented. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; see also Big Apple BMW, 974 F.2d at 1363.
In reaching this determination, the Third Circuit has instructed that:
To raise a genuine issue of material fact . . . the opponent need not
match, item for item, each piece of evidence proffered by the movant.
In practical terms, if the opponent has exceeded the “mere scintilla”
threshold and has offered a genuine issue of material fact, then the court
cannot credit the movant’s version of events against the opponent, even
if the quantity of the movant’s evidence far outweighs that of its
opponent. It thus remains the province of the fact finder to ascertain the
believability and weight of the evidence.
Id.
Case 4:24-cv-01600-JKM-MCC Document 49 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 6

4
There is a necessary corollary to federal summary judgment practice. As the
text of Rule 56 implies, a summary judgment motion is premised upon the existence
of a fully developed and materially uncontested factual record. Therefore, in a case
such as this, where no substantive responsive pleadings have been filed, and no
discovery has been undertaken, summary judgment motions are often deemed
premature and denied without prejudice to renewal at the close of discovery. See
e.g., In re Pettaway, 457 F. App'x 96, 97 (3d Cir. 2012); Boyd v. Mason, No. 3:20-
CV-02403, 2021 WL 11096486, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2021) (“Given the posture
of this case, which is in the early pleading stages, we find the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment to be premature . . . .”); Figueroa v. Bonneville Cont. & Tech.
Grp., Inc., No. CV 2014-78, 2015 WL 4978454, at *1 (D.V.I. Aug. 20, 2015); Njos
v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 3:12-CV-1251, 2013 WL 6628226, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Dec.
11, 2013); Mueller v. CBS, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 242, 244 (W.D. Pa. 2001). This is a
settled aspect of summary judgment practice because: “A court is ‘obliged to give a
party opposing summary judgment an adequate opportunity to obtain discovery.’”
Pre-Settlement Fin., LLC v. Ellis, No. CV 18-6339-KM-CLW, 2019 WL 3543999,
at *6 (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2019) (citing Doe v. Abington Friends Sch., 480 F.3d 252, 257
(3d Cir. 2007)).
Case 4:24-cv-01600-JKM-MCC Document 49 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 6

5
So it is here. In this case the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was filed
shortly after he filed an amended complaint following the dismissal of his original
pleading and the plaintiff seeks a summary adjudication in his favor prior to the filing
of any substantive responses to the complaint by the defendants, or the conduct of
essential factual discovery. Thus, the motion is entirely premature and will be denied
without prejudice to renewal at the close of discovery in this case.
Simply put, the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, while imaginative, is
premature. Accordingly, we recommend that the plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment, (Doc. 46), be DENIED without prejudice to renewal at the close of
discovery.
III. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, 	IT 	IS 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	the 	plaintiff’s 	motion 	for
summary judgment, (Doc. 46), be DENIED without prejudice to renewal at the close
of discovery.
The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings,
recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in
28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the
disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party
shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and
all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the
Case 4:24-cv-01600-JKM-MCC Document 49 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 6

6
portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which
objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing
requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or 	recommendations 	made 	by 	the 	magistrate 	judge. 	The 	judge,
however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or
where required by law, and may consider the record developed before
the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis
of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall
witnesses, 	or 	recommit 	the 	matter 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge 	with
instructions.
Submitted this 23 rd day of February 2026.
S/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-01600-JKM-MCC Document 49 Filed 02/23/26 Page 6 of 6