Bates v. Habeeb et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BIANCA BATES, 	: 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-568
:
Plaintiff 	: 	(Judge Neary)
:
v. 	:
:
AMIN HABEEB, MARISOL BASSIT, 	:
and IRON VALLEY REAL ESTATE 	:
:
Defendants 	:
MEMORANDUM
This matter comes before the court upon the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (Doc. 13) of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, wherein Judge Schwab
recommends this court dismiss plaintiff Bianca Bates’ amended complaint with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and for
failure to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In response to the R&R,
Bates filed a motion (Doc. 14) requesting for Judge Scwab’s recusal based on alleged
bias.
Objections to R&R’s are reviewed de novo when they are made timely and are
specific. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6 (3d Cir. 1984). When general objections are
made, the R&R shall be sustained absent “clear error or manifest injustice.” Glob.
Tower, LLC v. Hamilton Twp., 897 F. Supp. 2d 237, 249 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (citing
Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376-77 (M.D. Pa. 1998)).
Bates’s amended complaint (Doc. 12) charges defendants with violating the
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. She also
Case 1:25-cv-00568-KMN Document 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 4

argues defendants violated her constitutional rights. (Id.). However, the amended
complaint (Doc. 12) is completely devoid of any facts detailing what the defendants
are alleged to have done to Bates. Judge Schwab is correct that Bates’ amended
complaint (Doc. 12) fails to state a claim because, without any facts alleged, it
cannot state any claims.
In response, Bates argues Judge Schwab should be recused from this case
because she failed to consider the exhibits Bates submitted with her original
complaint and because Judge Schwab has recommended dismissal of some other
actions filed by Bates. (Doc. 13 at ECF 1-2). Starting with the latter, it is well
settled that “adverse rulings—even if they are erroneous—are not in themselves
proof of prejudice or bias.” Arrowpoint Cap. Corp. v. Arrowpoint Asset Mgmt., LLC,
793 F.3d 313, 330 (3d Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). So, even if Judge Schwab’s past
rulings were wrong—and to be clear, there is no reason to think they were—that is
not grounds warranting recusal.
Turning to Bates’s other objection, it is simply not true to say Judge Schwab
disregarded Bates’s exhibits. The original complaint in this case did not name any
federal statute nor did it specifically claim federal subject matter jurisdiction. (See
generally, Doc. 1). Further, Bates herself originally requested only $50,000, plus
fees, in that complaint. (Id. at ECF 1). So, the original complaint could not invoke
this court’s diversity jurisdiction either. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Judge Schwab had
no choice but dismiss the original complaint, but she did grant Bates leave to
amend. (Doc. 8 at 16).
Case 1:25-cv-00568-KMN Document 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 4

When Judge Schwab dismissed the first complaint, she warned Bates there
were other errors as well. (Id. at 9-14). She even took the time to explain the
requirements in plain language. (Id. at 15-16). One of these warnings was that
“[t]he amended complaint will replace the original complaint—the original
complaint will no longer play a role.” (Id. at 15). Bates’s latest complaint did not
include any exhibits, nor did it cite to any exhibits. (See generally Doc. 12). Judge
Schwab gave Bates clear instructions and warnings of what would happen if those
instructions were not followed. While true that pro se pleadings are to be liberally
construed, they are still bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hamilton v.
Robb, No. 3:18-CV-1915, 2020 WL 1228077, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2020). Bates
has repeatedly failed to file a proper complaint, nor has she provided specific
accusations of what defendants are alleged to have done. Given this, the court will
adopt Judge Schwab’s R&R and this case will be dismissed with prejudice. A
separate order shall issue.
/S/ K ELI M. N EARY
Keli M. Neary
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
February 9th, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00568-KMN Document 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 4

Therefore, AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 2025, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1. 	Magistrate Judge Schwab’s R&R (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 8) and second amended complaint
(Doc. 11) are dismissed with prejudice.
3. 	Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in
good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
4. 	The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
/S/ K ELI M. N EARY
Keli M. Neary
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Case 1:25-cv-00568-KMN Document 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 4