IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAQUEZ DAVON BROWN, : Civil No. 1:24-CV-00173 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA, et al., : : Defendants. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson ORDER Before the court is a report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo recommending that the pending motions to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part and that Plaintiff be given leave to amend his complaint. (Doc. 47.) Plaintiff objects to the report and recommendation expressing disagreement with Judge Caraballo’s conclusions and analysis but does not specifically argue that the analysis is legally or factually flawed. (Doc. 52.) Defendants responded to the objections. (Doc. 55.) 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,

, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). “To obtain de novo determination of a magistrate’s findings by a district court,

(b)(1) requires both timely and specific objections to the report.”

. 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,

, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2009). The court has reviewed Judge Caraballo’s report and recommendation and finds no clear error or manifest injustice on the face of the record. Plaintiff’s

objections merely express disagreement with Judge Caraballo’s analysis and conclusions or reargues issues already considered by Judge Caraballo. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) The report and recommendation, Doc. 47, is ADOPTED.1

2) Plaintiff’s objections, Doc. 52, are OVERRULED. 3) The motion to dismiss, Doc. 17, filed by Defendants York County, York County District Attorney’s Office, Karen Comery, David Maisch, and Virginia Hobbs is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The Fourteenth Amendment failure to train and supervise claim against York County and the Fourteenth Amendment false imprisonment claims against Comery, Maisch, and Hobbs are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and b. The Fourteenth Amendment failure to train and supervise claim against York County District Attorney’s Office, and the Fourteenth Amendment Brady and malicious prosecution claims against Comery, Maisch, and Hobbs are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1 The court is adopting all of the substantive recommendations in the report and recommendation but is exercising its discretion to simplify the procedural implementation of the substantive rulings. 4) The motion to dismiss, Doc. 22, filed by Defendants York City, the York City Police Department, Jeffrey Spence, and Andy Baez is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The Fourteenth Amendment failure to train and supervise claims against York City, Spence, and Baez are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and b. The Fourteenth Amendment failure to train and supervise claim against the York City Police Department, and the Fourteenth Amendment Brady claims against Spence and Baez are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5) The motion to dismiss, Doc. 26, filed by Defendants Gary Kelley is GRANTED, and the Fourteenth Amendment and ineffective assistance of counsel claims against Kelley are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 6) The Fourteenth Amendment failure to train and supervise claim against Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 7) The Fourteenth Amendment Brady claims against John Does 1 and 2 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 8) The claims for deliberate deception, failure to discipline officers regarding Brady violation, false arrest, denial of fair trial, and violation of self-incrimination are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 9) The Clerk of Court shall terminate the York County District Attorney’s Office, the York City Police Department, and Gary Kelley from this case. 10) Based on the rulings herein, Plaintiff’s complaint, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED. 11) Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in accordance with the report and recommendation, this order, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by January 30, 2026. If no amended complaint is filed, the Clerk of Court shall close this case. 12) Because the court is granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Doc. 51, is DENIED AS MOOT. 13) The Clerk of Court shall mail Plaintiff a blank complaint form. 14) This case is referred back to Judge Caraballo for further pretrial management.

s/Jennifer P. Wilson JENNIFER P. WILSON United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: December 15, 2025