Riboldi v. Warren County Department of Human Services Division of Temporary Assistance and Social Services, 082219 FED3, 19-1397
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||MATTHEW RIBOLDI, Appellant v. WARREN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION OF TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AND SOCIAL SERVICES (WCDHS); WORK FIRST NEW JERSEY (WFNJ)|
|Judge Panel:||Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||August 22, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) August 21, 2019
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-00572) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
Pro se appellant Matthew Riboldi challenges the District Court's decision dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
In October 2015, Riboldi filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey against the Warren County Department of Human Services ("WCDHS"), alleging "[s]ubstantial violations of Federal and N[.]J. state Acts including violations of constitutional rights." (Dist. Ct. docket # 1-1, at 2.) WCDHS removed the case to the District Court, and a United States Magistrate Judge subsequently directed Riboldi to file an amended complaint. Riboldi did so in May 2016, naming WCDHS and Work First New Jersey ("WFNJ") as defendants. The amended complaint alleged that WCDHS's and WFNJ's employees "failed to provide [Riboldi] with ADA accommodations and adhere to the guidelines of the N.J. Public assit. [sic] Handbook manual." (Dist. Ct. docket # 13, at 5.) Riboldi claimed that these violations caused his various medical conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder, and he sought $64 million in damages.
The New Jersey Attorney General's Office entered its appearance on behalf of WFNJ and moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 At a September 2017 hearing, the District Court granted that motion, dismissing the complaint in its entirety without prejudice to Riboldi's ability to file a second amended complaint. The District Court explained that, while Riboldi "has shown that he's an individual with...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP