Yarrington et al v. Gardens of Gettysburg 741 et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GARRY YARRINGTON and 	: Civil No. 1:25-CV-2440
JODIE LOUISE BYRNE, 	:
:
Plaintiffs, 	:
: (Judge Mehalchick)
v. 	:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
:
GARDENS OF GETTYSBURG 741, 	:
et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Factual Background
This case comes before us for a screening review of the plaintiffs’
pro se civil complaint.1 The plaintiffs, Garry Yarrington and Jodie Byrne,
filed 	this 	action 	against 	various 	institutional 	defendants, 	private
individuals, and a state court judge, claiming elder abuse, embezzlement,
and violations of unspecified constitutional rights. The plaintiffs vaguely
claim they endured abuse by the defendants from their handling of
1 Doc. 1.
Case 1:25-cv-02440-KM Document 7 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 10

2
Yarrington’s estate and his treatment in a nursing home. As relief, they
request fifty million dollars in compensatory damages.
Along with this complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
proceed
in forma pauperis.2 	We will conditionally grant the motion to
proceed
	in forma pauperis for screening purposes only, but after a
screening review, we recommend that this complaint be dismissed.
II. Discussion
A. Screening of
Pro Se Complaints – Standard of Review
We have a statutory obligation to preliminarily review
	pro se
complaints 	brought 	by 	plaintiffs 	given 	leave 	to 	proceed
	in 	forma
pauperis.3 	We review such complaints to determine whether there are
frivolous or malicious claims, or if the complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.4 This statutory preliminary screening
mirrors 	review 	under 	Rule 	12(b)(6) 	of 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil
Procedure, which provides for dismissal of a complaint for “failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”5
2 Doc. 5.
3
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
4
Id.
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Case 1:25-cv-02440-KM Document 7 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 10

3
With 	respect 	to 	this 	legal 	benchmark, 	under 	federal 	pleading
standards a plaintiff is required to set forth a “short and plain statement
of 	the 	claim 	showing 	that 	the 	pleader 	is 	entitled 	to 	relief.”6 	In
determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief under this
pleading standard, a court must accept the factual allegations in the
complaint as true7 and accept “all reasonable inferences that can be
drawn from them after construing them in the light most favorable to the
non-movant.”8 	However, 	a 	court 	is 	not 	required 	to 	accept 	legal
conclusions or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.”9
As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has aptly summarized:
[A]fter
Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two-
part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim
should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the
complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any
legal conclusions.
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949
. Second, a District
Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the
6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
7
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
8
Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d
Cir. 1994).
9
Id.;
see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice”).
Case 1:25-cv-02440-KM Document 7 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 10

4
complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a
“plausible claim for relief.”
	Id. at 1950. In other words, a
complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff’s entitlement
to relief. A complaint has to “show” such an entitlement with
its facts.
See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234–35. As the Supreme
Court instructed in
Iqbal, “[w]here the well-pleaded facts do
not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, 	the 	complaint 	has 	alleged—but 	it 	has 	not
‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ”
Iqbal, 129
S. Ct. at 1949. This “plausibility” determination will be “a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw
on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Id. 10
Generally, when considering a motion to dismiss, a court relies on
the complaint and its attached exhibits, as well as matters of public
record.11 	A court can also consider “undisputedly authentic document[s]
that a defendant attached as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the
plaintiff’s claims are based on the [attached] documents.”12 Additionally,
if the complaint relies on the contents of a document not physically
attached to the complaint but whose authenticity is not in dispute, the
court may consider such document in its determination.13 	However, the
10
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009).
11
Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007).
12
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192,
1196 (3d Cir. 1993).
13
See Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir.
2002).
Case 1:25-cv-02440-KM Document 7 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 10

5
court may not rely on any other part of the record when deciding a motion
to dismiss.14
Finally, when reviewing a
pro se complaint, we are reminded that
such complaints are to be construed liberally, “so ‘as to do substantial
justice.’”15 	We must apply the relevant law even if the
pro se plaintiff
does not mention it by name.16
B. This Complaint Should be Dismissed
After review, we conclude that the complaint should be dismissed.
Section 1983 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen 	of 	the 	United 	States 	or 	other 	person 	within 	the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,
or other proper proceeding for redress.17
14
Jordan, 20 F.3d at 1261.
15
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(f)).
16
Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing
Higgins v.
Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)).
17
See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Case 1:25-cv-02440-KM Document 7 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 10

6
“Section 1983 imposes civil liability upon any person who, acting
under the color of state law, deprives another individual of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States.”18 	Section 1983 “does not create any new substantive
rights but instead provides a remedy for the violation of a federal
constitutional or statutory right.”19
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must plead two
elements: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a “person”
acting under color of law; and (2) that conduct deprived the plaintiff of a
right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States.20
To the extent the plaintiffs are attempting to assert a federal civil
rights action against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it is not clear
from the complaint that the defendants are state actors, and thus, subject
18
See Shuman v. Penn Manor Sch. Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 146 (3d Cir.
2005) (citation omitted).
19
See id. (citation omitted).
20
	See Berg v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 268 (3d Cir. 2000)
(citation omitted);
Shaw by Strain v. Strackhouse, 920 F.2d 1135, 1141–
42 (3d Cir. 1990).
Case 1:25-cv-02440-KM Document 7 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 10

7
to liability under Section 1983.21 	Further, while action by a private
individual can satisfy the mandate of Section 1983 if the deprivation of a
federal right is “fairly attributable to the state[,]” even a liberal reading
of the complaint does not indicate that the plaintiffs have alleged a
deprivation of a federal right.22 Accordingly, this complaint fails to state
a Section 1983 claim against the defendants.
Additionally, it is well established that state judges are entitled to
immunity from civil liability for claims arising out of acts taken in their
official capacities. As the Third Circuit has explained, “[a] judicial officer
in the performance of his or her duties has absolute immunity from
suit.”23 Here, the plaintiffs’ complaint lists Judge Shawn Wagner. While
the complaint does not appear to assert any specific claims against the
judge, the plaintiffs aver that Judge Wagner “fail[ed] to hold a hearing
on Guardianship and waiver court fees.”24 	Accordingly, any claims
against him would plainly be barred by absolute immunity.
21
See Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638–39 (3d Cir. 1995).
22
See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982).
23
Kwasnik v. LeBlon, 228 F. App’x 238, 243 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing
Mireles
v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991)).
24 Doc. 1 at 7.
Case 1:25-cv-02440-KM Document 7 Filed 02/12/26 Page 7 of 10

8
Lastly, the plaintiffs seek disbarment of Defendant Steve Burgoon
and to hold him criminally liable for embezzlement.25 	They also allege
the defendants’ conduct amounts to elder abuse.26 	However, this Court
does not have jurisdiction over such matters. 	The power to disbar
attorneys from the practice of law solely rests with the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court.27 Additionally, it is well settled that “there is no private
right of action for alleged violations of criminal statutes,”28 	and that the
plaintiffs have no right to the enforcement of such criminal statutes
against the defendants.29 	Accordingly, any such claim fails as a matter
of law.
However, while we have concluded that the complaint does not
state a claim at this time, recognizing that the plaintiffs are
	pro se
litigants, we recommend that the court allow them an opportunity to
25
See Doc. 1 at 4–5.
26
Id. at 3.
27 Pa. Const. art. V, § 10(c).
28
Graf v. United States Army, No. 1:23-CV-2133, 2024 WL 579086, at
*3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2024),
report and recommendation adopted, 2024
WL 4711980 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2024) (collecting cases).
29
See id.;
Rodriguez v. Salus, 623 F. App’x 588, 590 (3d Cir. 2015);
Capogrosso v. The Supreme Ct. of New Jersey, 588 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir.
2009).
Case 1:25-cv-02440-KM Document 7 Filed 02/12/26 Page 8 of 10

9
amend their complaint to endeavor to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.30
III. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED
that the plaintiffs’ complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
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
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 because of that record. The judge may
30
See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247,
253 (3d Cir. 2007);
Alston, 363 F.3d at 235.
Case 1:25-cv-02440-KM Document 7 Filed 02/12/26 Page 9 of 10

10
also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Submitted this 12th day of February 2026.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02440-KM Document 7 Filed 02/12/26 Page 10 of 10