Pilchesky v. Office of the Attorney General of PA et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH PILCHESKY,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF PA, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-2258
(SAPORITO, J.)
(CAMONI, M.J.)
ORDER
Now before the court is a report and recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni, in which he recommends that
the defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. 10; Doc. 25) be granted. (Doc.
32).
The plaintiff brings claims against five defendants: (1) Office of the
Attorney General of PA; (2) Attorney General, Michelle Henry; (3) Deputy
Attorney 	General, 	Phillip 	McCarthy; 	(4) 	Senior 	Deputy 	Attorney
General, Cari Mahler; and (5) Deputy Attorney General, Jacob Frasch.
Those claims include: (1) First Amendment retaliation; (2) selective
prosecution under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) due process
violations 	under 	the 	Fourteenth 	Amendment; 	(4) 	First 	Amendment
Case 1:24-cv-02258-JFS Document 34 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
invasion 	of 	privacy; 	(5) 	violations 	of 	Equal 	Protection; 	(6) 	Fourth
Amendment unlawful search and seizure; and (7) conspiracy.
Upon review of the
pro se plaintiff ’s amended complaint, Judge
Camoni found that three of the defendants were entitled to immunity for
their roles in the underlying action. Judge Camoni found that the Office
of the Attorney General of PA was entitled to sovereign immunity because
it was a state agency. He further concluded that defendants McCarthy
and Mahler were shielded by prosecutorial immunity for actions taken
within the scope of their duties. In addition, Judge Camoni determined
that the plaintiff failed to allege defendant Henry’s personal involvement
in the purported violation of his rights necessary to establish his claims.
Finally, 	Judge 	Camoni 	considered 	the 	plaintiff ’s 	claims 	against
defendant 	Frasch 	predicated 	on 	defendant 	Frasch 	making 	“false
statements” 	and 	presenting 	“bogus 	legal 	conclusions” 	during 	the
plaintiff ’s prior federal civil action and concluded that those factual
allegations were insufficient to state a viable claim. Therefore, Judge
Camoni recommends the dismissal of all claims against all defendants.
The plaintiff filed his objections to Judge Camoni’s report and
recommendation on February 26, 2026. (Doc. 33). The plaintiff, however,
Case 1:24-cv-02258-JFS Document 34 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
appears to spend the majority of his objections addressing his grievances
with 	the 	legal 	system 	in 	its 	entirety 	rather 	than 	engaging 	in 	the
substantive portions of Judge Camoni’s report.
See, e.g., (Doc. 33, at 19)
(including 	a 	section 	labelled 	“M.J. 	Camoni’s 	glaring 	prejudice.”).
Therefore, after conducting a de novo review of the contested portions of
the report, we deem the plaintiff ’s objections to be unpersuasive as they
concern 	issues 	outside 	the 	scope 	of 	Judge 	Camoni’s 	report 	and
recommendation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
United States v. McLaughlin,
607 F. Supp. 3d 522, 529 (M.D. Pa. 2022).
We conclude that, following an independent review of the report
and the record, and having afforded “reasoned consideration” to the
uncontested and contested portions of the report,
E.E.O.C. v. City of Long
Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017), we are satisfied “that there is no
clear error on the face of the record,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee note to 1983 amendment. We find Judge Camoni’s analysis to
be well-reasoned and fully supported by the record and applicable law.
Accordingly, the court will adopt the report and recommendation in its
entirety as the decision of the court.
Case 1:24-cv-02258-JFS Document 34 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The report and recommendation of Judge Camoni (Doc. 32) is
ADOPTED in its entirety;
2. 	The defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. 10; Doc. 25)) are
GRANTED; and
3. 	The Clerk shall close this case.
Dated: February 27, 2026
	s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-02258-JFS Document 34 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 4