George Henry Whaley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE HENRY WHALEY, JR., : Civil No. 1:25-CV-01118 : 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 Martin C. Carlson recommending that Plaintiff’s case be remanded to state court and that all pending motions be denied. (Doc. 55.) Since the filing of the report and recommendation, Plaintiff filed six documents with varying titles, including one titled objection to the report and recommendation. (Docs. 58, 60–64.) Following a careful review of these documents, only the document titled as an objection can be construed as such.1 (Doc. 61.) Therein, Plaintiff broadly argues that he can legally pursue removal of his state court criminal proceedings to this court. (Id.)

1 From a review of the documents, it appears that Plaintiff may be trying to pursue relief in the form of a habeas petition or civil rights action. (See Docs. 58, 62.) These are separate matters that need to file separately and properly under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the relevant federal statutes.

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).

The court has reviewed Judge Carlson’s report and recommendation and finds no clear error or manifest injustice on the face of the record except as to the implementing recommendation wherein Judge Carlson recommends that the case be remanded to state court. (Doc. 55, p. 17.)2 As to this recommendation, the court finds that the report errs by remanding this matter to state court. Rather, this case will be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons analyzed by Judge Carlson, namely, that Plaintiff may not remove his state criminal case to federal court. (Id. at 3–17.)

As to Plaintiff’s objections, the objections merely express disagreement with Judge Carlson’s analysis and reargue Plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, the court will

2 For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers in the CM/ECF header. adopt the report and recommendation in part, overrule Plaintiff’s objections, dismiss this case with prejudice, and deny Plaintiff’s remaining motions as moot.

An order will follow. s/Jennifer P. Wilson JENNIFER P. WILSON United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania Dated: March 25, 2026