govinfo:USCOURTS-pawd-2_26-cv-00792-1

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
MARK JONATHAN VARGO, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 v. 
 
PEOPLES GAS CO., 
 
 Defendant. 
 
)
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 ) 
 ) 
 
 
No. 2-26-cv-792-RJC-MPK 
 
District Judge Robert J. Colville 
Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER OF COURT 
Currently pending before the Court is the May 20, 2026 Report and Recommendation (ECF 
No. 4) filed by the Honorable Maureen P. Kelly in the above -captioned matter. Judge Kelly’s 
Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1915(e)(2). It further recommends that dismissal be with prejudice to refiling in this Court, but 
without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling his state law claims in state court, if appropriate. Objections 
to the Report and Recommendation were due by June 8, 2026. No objections were filed, and the 
Court considers this matter to be ripe for disposition. 

2 
 
“The Federal Magistrates Act provides two separate standards of judicial review of orders 
on matters referred to magistrate judges.” Alarmax Distributors, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 
2:14-cv-1527, 2015 WL 12756857, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). 
A district court reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s decision on non- dispositive matters to 
determine whether any part of the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 
636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 
Objections to a magistrate judge’s disposition of a dispositive matter are subject to de novo 
review before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (B)-(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The 
reviewing district court must make a de novo determination of thos e portions of the magistrate 
judge’s report and recommendation to which objections are made. Id. Following de novo review, 
“[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained that, “even absent 
objections to the report and recommendation, a district court should ‘afford some level of review 
to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,’” and has “described this level of review as 
‘reasoned consideration.’” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 
F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)). 
Upon reasoned consideration of Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s 
Complaint (ECF No. 3), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 
The Court agrees with the thorough and well -reasoned analysis set forth in Judge Kelly ’s 
Report and Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts Judge Kelly ’s Report and 
Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the Court . This case is hereby dismissed with 
prejudice to refiling in this Court. This dismissal is entered without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling 

3 
 
his state law claims in state court, if appropriate . The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as 
CLOSED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/Robert J. Colville_______ 
Robert J. Colville 
 United States District Judge 
 
DATED: June 18, 2026 
 
 
 
cc: All Counsel of Record 
 
Mark Jonathan Vargo 
427 Patton Street 
Wilmerding, PA 15148 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight