Dillsburg Ventures, LLC v. Carroll Township

Filing 94

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 89 of Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson, REFERRING matater to governing body of Carroll Twp for futher proceedings consistent w/ MJ Carlson's R&R 89 , & directing parties to file joint status rpt w/ ct w/in 90 days of date of this order & @ 90 day intervals thereafter. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/24/14. (ki)

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

DILLSBURG VENTURES, LLC,
Plaintiff
v.
CARROLL TOWNSHIP,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-0275
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 89) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending, pursuant to
53 PA . CONS. STAT . § 11006-A(c), that the court “refer . . . [this settlement and proposed
development] to the governing body, agency or officer having jurisdiction thereof for
further proceedings,” id., and that the parties be directed to report on the progress of
this matter within ninety (90) days, and it appearing from the parties’ joint notice that
neither party intends to object to the report, (see Doc. 93), and that there is no clear error

on the face of the record,1 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007), it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 89) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson is
ADOPTED.

2.

This matter is REFERRED to the governing body of Carroll Township for
further proceedings, consistent with Magistrate Judge Carlson’s report and
recommendation.

3.

The parties shall file a joint status report with the court within ninety (90)
days of the date of this order and at ninety (90) day intervals thereafter.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

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, 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, 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.” FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b),
advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 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. 375-78 (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, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding
that the court will review the report and recommendation for “clear error”). The
court reviews the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in accordance
with this Third Circuit directive.