THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE HENRY WHALEY, JR., : Plaintiff, : V. : 4:23-CV-1706 : (JUDGE MARIANI) COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA, : Defendant. : ORDER AND NOW, THIS ayhh DAY OF APRIL 2024, upon de novo review' of Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 15), Plaintiff's “Answer” thereto (Doc. 16), and all other relevant documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 16) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's “Answer to Report & Recommendation” (Doc. 15) is untethered to the applicable law and presents only baseless and unsupported arguments. Plaintiffs only statement relevant to the present action and the pending R&R is that “it is a ‘LIE’ that the COMMONWEALTH

' Strictly construed, Plaintiff's document entitled “Answer to Report & Recommendation” (Doc. 16) fails to meet the requirements necessary to rise to the level of an Objection. If a party timely arid properly fles a written: objection to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, he Distict ‘Court “shall ma&e a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendatiors to which objection is made.” /d. at § 636(b)(1)(C); see also, Brown v. Astrue,

(3d Cir. 2011); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3. Here, while Plaintiff's “Answer” was timely filed, he has not identified with any specificity the portions of the R&R, proposed findings, or recommendations to which he objects. Nonetheless, construing Plaintiffs “Answer’ in the most liberal manner, and giving Plaintiff every benefit, the Court has performed a de novo review of the R&R.

OF PENNSYLVANIA has never been served.” (Doc. 16, at 2). In support of this statement, Plaintiff attaches a “Proof of Service” stating that he sent a summons in this case on March 16, 2024 to the Lycoming Court of Common Pleas, by certified mail (see Doc. 16-2). However, as Judge Bloom correctly explained, under the facts of this case, Pennsylvania does not permit service upon the Commonwealth by mail. (Doc. 15, at 3-4). Furthermore, regardless of whether Plaintiff properly served the Commonwealth, the Court agrees with Judge Bloom that Whaley’s filings do not establish “any of the narrow circumstances . . . conferring subject matter jurisdiction on this court over Whaley’s state criminal matter.” (/d. at 3). Having conducted a de

novo review of the R&R, this Court finds Judge Bloom’s analysis to be supported by well-established legal principles, and Plaintiffs Objections to be without merit. 2. The R&R (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein. 3. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

li 41 2 ete Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge