Frank Tufano v. Paul Saladino, MD, et al.

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FILED SCRANTON FRANK TUFANO, MAR 20 2026 Plaintiff pen V. : 3:25-CV-1400 DEPUTY CLERK : (JUDGE MARIANI) PAUL SALADINO, MD, et ai., : Defendants : ORDER AND NOW, THIS 3 OF MARCH, 2026, upon review of Magistrate Judge Leo Latella’s Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 6) for clear error or manifest injustice,’ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED for the reasons stated therein.

2. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

' Ifa party timely and properly files a written objection to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the District Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C, § 636(b)(1)(C); see also, Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3. Here, following the issuance of the R&R, Plaintiff filed a "Response to Report and Recommendations by Judge Latella” (Doc.

8, at 1) and “Brief in Support of Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint” (Doc. 7; Doc. 8 at 2).

Plaintiff's filings are insufficient to rise to the level of one or more Objections fo the R&R. Tufano’s one- page, near-identical, filings reference the R&R’s “comprehensive and detailed reasoning for why {his] claims are not admissible” but assert that “clear wrongdoing” has nonetheless been committed against him and that he would “prefer this matter to be determined by a trial of his peers as opposed to any individual judge.” (See Doc. 8, at 1; see also, Doc. 7). Plaintiff's filings do not reference any specific portions of the R&R to which objection is made or set forth any statement or assertion which would alter the correctness of the pending R&R or affect this Court's review of the R&R. The Court thus need not engage in a de novo analysis, Nonetheless, upon review of the relevant documents, even if this Court applied a de novo review, the result would be the same.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned action.

Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge