Case research · C059

Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al

4:25-cv-01960 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

ClosedDismissedPennsylvania

CourtU.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

FiledOctober 17, 2025

StatusClosed

OutcomeDismissed

Final dispositionWithout prejudice

JurisdictionPennsylvania

Pro seYes

Current / transferee court—

Transferred case—

Last researchedSeptember 23, 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.

Proceeding pro se, Tufano filed this complaint on October 17, 2025 — the third of three near-identical suits over the same dispute — against Paul Saladino, M.D., Jeffrey Davis, Esq., White Plains Lodge #473, “the Illuminati,” and, new to this filing, U.S. District Judge Karoline Mehalchick (who had dismissed his first suit against Saladino) and Union Lodge #291.

As in the prior two suits, the complaint alleges Saladino plagiarized his Carnivore Diet research and, with “secret societies” including the Freemasons and Illuminati, conspired to profit from and discredit him; it raises the same five causes of action as C055 — fraud, tortious interference, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, and conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 — and newly alleges Judge Mehalchick and Union Lodge #291 were involved in unfairly dismissing his earlier case against Saladino. He again seeks damages for the alleged fraud and conspiracy. (The court's opinion in C055 states this case's, C055's, and C048's factual allegations are identical — confirmed near-duplicate filings.)

Complaint / docket source — govinfo.gov ↗

Defendants

Source record

This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.

Outcome and research status

Outcome reason: Complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Update 2026-08-25: The report and recommendation (Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella) and the adopting order (Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann) were both read in full, upgrading this record from a docket snapshot. The order adopts the recommendation, dismisses the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and directs the Clerk to close the case. The recommended grounds are that 18 U.S.C. sec. 241 "do[es] not provide for a private right of action"; that there is no complete diversity because "the Plaintiff alleges that he, Judge Mehalchick, and Union Lodge #291 are all citizens of Pennsylvania"; and that amendment would be futile because "a judicial officer in the performance of his or her duties has absolute immunity from suit."

Research status: Source-backed (report and recommendation and adopting order both read in full via GovInfo)

Research notes: The C055 R&R expressly identifies C059 as a third similar action against the same defendants, making identical factual allegations and raising the same claims as C055; it added Judge Mehalchick after she dismissed C048.

Related litigation

Previous related case: 3:25-cv-01400 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
Dispute group: Saladino-related litigation

Court & ruling records

Findings recorded only where they are tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.

All 73 records →

Record labels distinguish final orders/opinions, reports and recommendations, non-final orders, and tentative/indexed ruling records.

Lack of jurisdiction

Court order / opinionFebruary 3, 2026

Court adopted the R&R and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Matthew W. Brann

February 3, 2026 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗

Filing-restriction indicators

Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.

StrongThird similar action with same claims / defendants

C055 R&R identifies C059 as a third similar action against the same defendants, making identical factual allegations and raising the same claims as C055; C059 was later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

R&R description + final dismissal

Source — govinfo.gov ↗

Chronology events

Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.

October 17, 2025

Third similar complaint filed

Tufano filed a third similar action against the same defendants; it also added Judge Karoline Mehalchick.

Saladino repeated-litigation chain · Judicially confirmed repetitionSource — govinfo.gov ↗

February 3, 2026

R&R and related dismissal

The C055 R&R recommended dismissal with no further leave to amend; on the same date C059 was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Saladino repeated-litigation chain · Judicially confirmed repetitionSource — govinfo.gov ↗

Secondary sources

Commentary from former counsel or other secondary sources is retained separately from court findings and primary-source records.

Saladino v. Frank Tufano 20-cv-9346 – Decision on Mr. Tufano's Motion to Vacate His DefaultFebruary 16, 2026

Davis summarizes the representation/default chronology in C100 and points readers to the Jan. 29, 2026 Opinion & Order. The underlying court record independently confirms counsel was relieved Feb. 23, 2021, no answer was filed, default followed, and the earlier motion to vacate default was denied after the court found willful default and no meritorious defense.

Evidentiary treatment: Blog commentary is secondary. Court findings about default, motions, and representation are recorded in COURT_FINDINGS only where supported by the court opinions/docket.

Jeffrey Davis · Davis Cantor · Former-counsel blog / secondary sourceSecondary source — daviscantor.com ↗