Ripple, Administratix v. Matulewicz et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEPHANIE ANN RIPPLE,
Administratrix,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY MATULEWICZ, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 4:25-CV-00322
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Before the court are two reports and recommendations of United States
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson. (Docs. 41, 43.) The first, issued on August
21, 2025, recommends that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Michael
O’Donnell be granted and that Defendant O’Donnell be dismissed from this
action.1 (Doc. 41.) Judge Carlson makes this recommendation because Plaintiff’s
claims are barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata, issue preclusion, the
applicable statute of limitations, and further fail as a matter of law. (Id.) The
second report and recommendation issued on September 12, 2025, provides that
the court should dismiss the complaint against Defendant Leticia James without
prejudice because Plaintiff has failed to serve her despite being given ample time
to do so and warned about the prospect of dismissal. (Doc. 43.) Also before the
1 Judge Carlson also recommends dismissal of Defendant Anthony Matulewicz. (Doc. 32.)
However, dismissal of Defendant Matulewicz is not necessary as he was previously terminated
from this action on April 25, 2025. (Doc. 23.)
Case 4:25-cv-00322-JPW Document 88 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 7

2
court are numerous motions filed by Plaintiff requesting a variety of relief. (See
Docs. 44–50, 55, 56, 59–80, 82–87.) For the reasons stated herein, the court will
adopt both reports and recommendations. The court will also grant Plaintiff’s
motion for relief from judgment, Doc. 49, and adopt, for a second time, the reports
and recommendations issued on May 28 and June 2, 2025, Docs. 35 & 38. All
other outstanding motions will be denied.
S TANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Report and Recommendations
When a party raises only general objections to a report and recommendation,
a district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of the report and
recommendation. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). “To obtain de
novo determination of a magistrate’s findings by a district court, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) requires both timely and specific objections to the report.” Id. at 6.
Thus, when reviewing general objections to a report and recommendation, the
court’s review is limited “to ascertaining whether there is ‘clear error’ or ‘manifest
injustice’” on the face of the record. Boomer v. Lewis, No. 3:06-CV-00850, 2009
WL 2900778, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2009).
B. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides, in relevant part:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
Case 4:25-cv-00322-JPW Document 88 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 7

3
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; . . . or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
(d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This rule does not limit a court's
power to . . .
(3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
DISCUSSION
In response to the reports and recommendations, Plaintiff filed numerous
documents. She filed objections, a motion to reconsider or vacate the reports and
recommendations, motions for relief from judgment, a motion to strike, numerous
motions to supplement or amend, a motion for sanctions, a motion for summary
judgment, a motion for default judgment, and other documents. (Docs. 44–50, 55,
56, 59–80, 82–87.) The objection filed on November 26, 2025 “demands” that this
court strike the September 12, 2025 report and recommendation due to it being
“fatally corrupted” and “ORDER RECUSAL of the presiding judges for their
egregious, deliberate bias that reeks of complicity.” (Doc. 64, p. 1.) 2 Without
2 For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.
Case 4:25-cv-00322-JPW Document 88 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 7

4
addressing the analysis of the September 12, 2025 report and recommendation,
Plaintiff submits that adopting the report and recommendation “would constitute a
grotesque miscarriage of justice and active participation in the ongoing cover-up of
state-sponsored murder.” (Id. at 2.) The second objection also addresses the
September 12, 2025 report and recommendation, arguing that the court should
reject the report and recommendation with similar allegations, but fails to address
the analysis actually set forth in the report. (Doc. 76.) Relatedly, Plaintiff filed a
motion to strike the September 12, 2025 report and recommendation for similar
reasons as stated in the objections, but expands on her arguments and allegations.
(Docs. 55, 56.)
In numerous documents filed by Plaintiff, she complains that she did not
receive her mail in time to file objections to the reports and recommendations filed
on May 28, June 2, August 21, and September 12, 2025, and her failure to respond
is due to excusable neglect. (See, e.g., Docs. 49, 50, 56.) She submits that the
court is malicious for failing to use certified mail and argues deliberate sabotage of
her case. (Doc. 56.)
As to the August 21 st and September 12th reports and recommendations, the
court accepts Plaintiff’s assertions that she did not receive her mail timely so that
she could file objections to these reports and recommendations by the deadline.
That said, Plaintiff has since filed numerous documents, including objections to the
Case 4:25-cv-00322-JPW Document 88 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 7

5
reports and recommendations, which the court will consider as if they were timely
filed.3 A review of the objections (and all other documents filed by Plaintiff)
shows that Plaintiff merely reargues the allegations in her complaint and expresses
disagreement with Judge Carlson’s analysis. (See, e.g., Docs. 64, 76.)
Accordingly, finding no clear error or manifest injustice on the face of the record,
the court will overrule Plaintiff’s objections and adopt the August 21 st and
September 12th reports and recommendations.
Next, reviewing the other documents filed by Plaintiff, it appears Plaintiff is
requesting relief from the court’s August 20, 2025 order adopting the reports and
recommendations issued on May 28 and June 2, 2025. She invokes various
subsections of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. (See Docs. 49, 50.) In the
motion for relief from judgement and other documents, Plaintiff argues that the
court should vacate its August 20 th order due to her excusable neglect in non-
delivery of mail. (Doc. 49, p. 1.) She also requests that she be permitted to file
late objections to the reports and recommendations adopted in the August 20 th
order. (Id. at 1.) In the motion and brief, she also argues the substance of her
objections to the May 28 th and June 2 nd reports and recommendations.
3 Because the court will rule on Plaintiff’s objections, her motions to reconsider or vacate the
report and recommendation, Doc. 44, for relief from judgment, Doc. 46, and to strike the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, Doc. 55, will be denied as moot.
Case 4:25-cv-00322-JPW Document 88 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 7

6
The court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment based on
Rule 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect as the court accepts Plaintiff’s representation
that she did not receive her mail. (Doc. 49.) Thus, the court vacates its August 20,
2025 order and will review Plaintiff’s objections to the May 28th and June 2 nd
reports and recommendations. (Doc. 39.)
The reports and recommendations of Judge Carlson recommend that the
motions to dismiss filed by David W. Sunday, Jr., the Pennsylvania Attorney
General, former Pennsylvania Secretary of Corrections, John Wetzel, and District
Attorney of Snyder County, Heath Brosius, be dismissed because the claims are
barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and time barred, among other reasons.
(Docs. 35, 38.) A review of Plaintiff’s objections shows that Plaintiff merely
reargues the allegations in her complaint and expresses disagreement with Judge
Carlson’s analysis. (Docs. 49 &50.) Accordingly, finding no clear error or
manifest injustice on the face of the record, the court will overrule Plaintiff’s
objections and again adopt the May 28th and June 2 nd reports and
recommendations.
Case 4:25-cv-00322-JPW Document 88 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 7

7
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the court will adopt all four reports and
recommendations issued by Judge Carlson and overrule Plaintiff’s objections. An
appropriate order with additional details follows.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: January 30, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-00322-JPW Document 88 Filed 01/30/26 Page 7 of 7