Stine v. Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement

Filing 84

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of magistrate judge 78 & GRANTING defts' motion to dismiss 65 pltf's claims under Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment to extent that it seeks dismissal of substantive due process & DENIED to the extent that is seeks dismisal of claims for violations of procedural due process. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 05/25/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTOPHER L. STINE,
Plaintiff
v.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE,
BUREAU OF LIQUOR CONTROL
ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-944
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of May, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William T. Prince (Doc. 78),
recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 65) be granted to the extent it
seeks dismissal of the claims for violations of substantive due process and denied to the
extent that it seeks dismissal of claims for violations of procedural due process, and,
following an independent review of the record and noting that defendants filed
objections1 to the report on May 6, 2011 (Doc. 81), and the court finding Judge Prince’s
analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding defendants’ objections
to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Prince’s report, it is hereby
ORDERED that:

1

Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are
filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the
report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.
1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires
‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for
those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL
4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

1.

The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Prince (Doc. 78) are
ADOPTED.

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 65) plaintiff’s claims under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is GRANTED to the extent
that it seeks dismissal of claims for violations of substantive due process,
and DENIED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of claims for violations of
procedural due process.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge