Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Case research · C064
Tufano v. Nelson et al
3:26-cv-00542 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Closed; Tufano appealed to the Third Circuit on September 9, 2026 (No. 26-3303), eight days after the closing order.Report and recommendation adopted; motions to dismiss granted; case closedPennsylvania
CourtU.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
FiledMarch 4, 2026
StatusClosed; Tufano appealed to the Third Circuit on September 9, 2026 (No. 26-3303), eight days after the closing order.
OutcomeReport and recommendation adopted; motions to dismiss granted; case closed
Final dispositionDismissed on adoption of the Aug. 12, 2026 report and recommendation; both motions to dismiss granted and the case closed Sept. 1, 2026. The order PDF is an image-only scan, so the grounds of dismissal are not established.
JurisdictionPennsylvania
Pro seYes
Current / transferee court—
Transferred case—
Last researchedSeptember 10, 2026
About this case
Evidentiary treatment: This summarizes the plaintiff's own allegations as stated in the complaint or docket record cited below. It reflects what was filed, not a court finding, and is not a determination that the allegations are true.
Plaintiff Frank Tufano, pro se, brings claims for fraud/fraudulent concealment (42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524) and civil conspiracy, plus a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 241, against former S.D.N.Y. judge Roman Stephen Nelson, Judith C. McCarthy, his own former attorneys Jeffrey Davis, Esq. and David D. Lin, Esq., Paul Saladino, MD, and “White Plains Lodge #473” (a Masonic lodge). He alleges these defendants — fellow Freemasons bound by oaths of secrecy — conspired to obtain a fraudulent default judgment against him in the earlier Saladino v. Tufano federal case, denying him due process and a jury trial.
He seeks roughly $3.3 million for lost business, $2.3 million for pain and suffering, and $330,000 reimbursing the challenged judgment, plus a jury trial.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Outcome reason: Notice of Removal from Lackawanna County case 2026-CV-637 was filed March 4, 2026. Latest accessible snapshot showed a motion to dismiss and service proceedings, with no final disposition verified.
Update 2026-09-03: The case was dismissed and closed on Sept. 1, 2026. Judge Julia K. Munley entered an order adopting Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella’s report and recommendation of Aug. 12, 2026 in its entirety, granting the motions to dismiss filed by Roman Stephen Nelson and Judith C. McCarthy (Doc. 3) and by White Plains Lodge #473 (Doc. 11), construing the plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. 16) as an objection and denying it, and directing the Clerk of Court to close the case. The operative language is recorded verbatim in GovInfo’s docket text for the order. The order PDF itself is an image-only scan with no text layer, so the court’s reasoning was not read and this is recorded as a docket snapshot rather than a court finding.
Research status: Source-backed closure (GovInfo docket text of the Sept. 1, 2026 order, verbatim); order PDF is an image-only scan and its reasoning was not read
Research notes: Same action as C030 after removal. Latest accessible public docket snapshot runs through April 28, 2026.
Taking an appeal is a party’s filing, not a ruling — only an appellate court’s own disposition is a finding, and a disposition recorded here is a docket fact rather than reasoning unless the order itself was read. An appeal continues the action it arises from, so appeals are never counted as additional lawsuits: the case and originating-action counts published elsewhere on this site are unaffected by this section. Where a docket number or a current status is not recorded, that is a stated gap in the research, not a finding that none exists. See Methodology.
26-3303
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third CircuitPendingDocket number recorded, status unverified
Notice of appeal September 9, 2026 · Docketed September 9, 2026
Found 2026-09-10 by a party sweep of the Third Circuit; the appeal was not previously recorded and had been docketed the day before. Captioned 'Frank Tufano v. Roman Nelson'. Its first entry reads 'CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellant Frank Tufano in District Court No. 3:26-cv-00542', which is this row's case, and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis was filed the same day. The district court closed the action eight days earlier, on 2026-09-01, by an order adopting the report and recommendation and granting the motions to dismiss. There is no disposition and nothing to verify yet beyond the docketing itself.
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Case dismissed and closed
The removed federal action (M.D. Pa. 3:26-cv-00542) was dismissed and closed. The order adopted the Aug. 12, 2026 report and recommendation in its entirety, granted both motions to dismiss, and denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike as an objection.
Public statements are displayed separately from court findings. Quotations are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and timestamped from the caption cues covering the passage quoted. The Strong / Moderate / Context tier is this project’s research classification of how closely a statement bears on the documented filing patterns — it is not a judicial finding. Any second badge names the filing-restriction factor the statement’s own words describe; it records what the speaker said, not that a court found it.
How quotations are marked: An ellipsis (…) inside a quotation marks words left out between two passages of the same video, which can sit some minutes apart. The omitted wording is not reproduced here, and a clip on the statement supercut plays the whole span from the quotation’s first word to its last — so it includes the omitted material. Quotations without an ellipsis are continuous speech.
Some of you guys are joking to sue the judge, and I've done that, but what do you expect? They just throw out the case. This is what happened when I sued the judge in the Saladin lawsuit, Nelson Staffen Roman. It was just thrown out last week.
The speaker states, in his own words, that he sued the judge who presided over the Saladino action and that the suit was dismissed "last week." Both halves are independently corroborated by the dataset: C030/C064 (*Tufano v. Nelson*) names Roman Stephen Nelson (D0230) as a defendant, and its closing order was entered 2026-09-01, nine days before publication. It cannot reach Strong because neither factor is one of the three core filing-conduct factors — confirming a filing and reporting a ruling against himself are a docket fact and an announcement, not repeat-filing conduct.
And I didn't know that these judges could deny your right to a jury trial. And every single lawsuit I filed, I've always requested a jury trial. It's your amendment right, but I guess Frank Tufano isn't entitled to one.
This restates, on camera, the same jury-trial theory that C030/C064's claims summary records as pleaded — that the defendants denied him due process and a jury trial. It is the speaker's characterisation of how courts have treated his filings, not a court's finding, and it gives no count of filings, so `Self-reported filing volume` does not apply despite the phrase "every single lawsuit I filed."
Each video has its own research page with its verified publish date, timestamped statements and case links. A researched link between a video and a docket record is not a finding of causation in either direction.
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Nelson et al (3:26-cv-00542)". Research last verified September 10, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-26-cv-00542-tufano-v-nelson-et-al/