Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK TUFANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL SALADINO, MD, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 4:25-CV-01960
(Chief Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Latella)
ORDER
FEBRUARY 3, 2026
Frank Tufano filed this civil complaint alleging that numerous individuals and
entities have conspired against him. 1 In December 2025, Magistrate Judge Leo A.
Latella issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court sua
sponte dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.2 Tufano filed
timely objections to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that he has stated a
claim for relief and that the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. 3
“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’” 4
1 	Doc. 1.
2 	Doc. 5.
3 	Doc. 6.
4 	Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 7 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject,
or 	modify—in 	whole 	or 	in 	part—the 	magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations.5 After reviewing the record, the Court finds no error in Magistrate
Judge Latella’s recommendation that this matter should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.
5) is ADOPTED;
2. 	Tufano’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack
of jurisdiction; and
3. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
5 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 7 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2