Gloria Scarnati v. PA Ofc of Inspector Gen , 469 F. App'x 75 ( 2012 )

DLD-132 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-4543
___________
MISS GLORIA E. SCARNATI
v.
PA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL; DONALD L. PATTERSON
Miss Gloria Scarnati, Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2:11-cv-01143)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 8, 2012
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 13, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Gloria Scarnati, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order
1
dismissing her civil rights complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily
affirm.
I.
In September 2011, Scarnati initiated this action by filing a complaint in the
District Court against the Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) and Donald
L. Patterson, former Director of OIG (hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Defendants”). The complaint alleged that Defendants had violated Scarnati’s Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights when (1) an OIG agent left his business card at her
door “in plain sight for anyone who walked by to see,” and (2) Defendants failed to serve
a copy of a complaint that “may have been filed” against her. (Compl. 1.) In light of
these alleged violations, Scarnati “demand[ed] judgment against the defendants in the
amount of $200,000.00 or in the interim that she be given a signed letter of apology from
the current Director [of OIG] along with the entire original file concerning this incident
for disposal.” (Id. at 3.)
On November 18, 2011, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Shortly thereafter, Scarnati cross-moved for
summary judgment. On December 8, 2011, the District Court granted Defendants’
motion and denied Scarnati’s motion as moot. In doing so, the court concluded that the
claims in Scarnati’s complaint were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and that
amending her complaint would be futile. This appeal followed.
2
II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise
de novo review over the District Court’s dismissal of Scarnati’s complaint. See Pa. Fed’n
of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc. v. Hess, 297 F.3d 310, 315 (3d Cir. 2002). For the reasons
articulated by the District Court, we agree with its ruling. Since this appeal does not
present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
3