Mathias v. Kershaw

1:09-cv-01515 | M.D. Penn. | Nov 30, 2010

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SHAHNAWAZ MATHIAS, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-1515 Plaintiff : : (Judge Conner) v. : : RHYS KERSHAW, KEVIN TITZELL : and YORK COUNTY, :

Defendants : ORDER AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2010, upon consideration of the report of United States Magistrate Judge William T. Prince (Doc. 24), recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. 18) be granted, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, [1] and that there is no clear error on the face of the record, see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that “failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level”), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report of Magistrate Judge Prince (Doc. 24) is ADOPTED in its entirety. 2. The motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case.

S/ Christopher C. Conner

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge 2

NOTES

[1] When parties fail to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140" date_filed="1986-01-27" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Thomas v. Arn">474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As a matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts to “afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874" date_filed="1987-04-03" court="3rd Cir." case_name="Henderson v. Norman Carlson">812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). The advisory committee notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d 874" date_filed="1987-04-03" court="3rd Cir." case_name="Henderson v. Norman Carlson">812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that “the failure of a party to object to a magistrate’s legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo review in the district court”); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F. Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that the court’s review is conducted under the “plain error” standard); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375" date_filed="1998-01-12" court="M.D. Penn." case_name="Cruz v. Chater">990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether there is “clear error on the face of the record”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397" date_filed="1998-12-07" court="E.D. Pa." case_name="Oldrati v. Apfel">33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for “clear error”). The court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in accordance with this Third Circuit directive.