Dixon, Jr v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Docket 1:25-cv-01916

Filed
2025-10-14
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

other dismissal

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=14 OFFICE=1 DOCKET=2501916 FILEDATE=10/14/2025 DISP=14, PROCPROG=10, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL ANGELO DIXON, JR., : Civil No. 1:25-CV-01916 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA, et al., : : Defendants. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson MEMORANDUM Before the court is the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella recommending that the amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice without leave to amend. (Doc. 12.) No party has filed objections to the report and recommendation, resulting in the forfeiture of de novo review by this court. Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878–79 (3d Cir. 1987)). Following an independent review of the report and record, and affording “reasoned consideration” to the uncontested portions of the report, EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson, 812 F.2d at 879), to “satisfy [the court] that there is no clear error on the face of the record,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, the court finds that Judge Latella’s analysis is well-reasoned and fully supported by the record and applicable law. Accordingly, the court will adopt the report and recommendation, Doc. 12, and dismiss the amended complaint, Doc. 11, with prejudice. An appropriate order follows. s/Jennifer P. Wilson JENNIFER P. WILSON United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania Dated: February 17, 2026

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.